One of the pictures Polanski took of his 13 year old victim
The title of this post is a key fact that everyone should keep in mind when discussing this case, but it is not the main point of this post. Some rapist enablers people like Jeralyn Merritt don’t even want anyone bring it up:
Free Roman (5.00 / 1) (#122)
by mudlark on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 08:10:16 PM EST
Free Roman. Well, that’s a new low. He sodomized a thirteen year old girl after giving her drugs and alcohol. Do you have to try to make him a martyr? Read her piece in the Los Angeles Times (reprinted yesterday from 2003). You can play games with the facts, but that’s exactly what he did, according to the girl herself.You want him turned lose? Fine. But stop trying to make him an object of pity or a victim. It makes me want to puke.
then go elsewhere (5.00 / 1) (#140)
by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 12:24:36 AM EST
And don’t pollute this site, which is a site dedicated to preserving the constitutional rights of those accused of crime. Your raw emotional ranting is not welcome here. If you have some cogent thoughts on the legal case or extradition, you are welcome to comment, even if you disagree with TalkLeft’s point of view. If you don’t, and just want to spew, please remove yourself.
The other thing that Jeralyn keeps avoiding is that Polanski pled guilty to having sex with a 13 year old child and then fled the country before he could be sentenced. The alleged judicial misconduct was post-plea, and the proper remedy is not a dismissal but is to either impose the sentence agreed upon in the plea bargain or allow Polanski to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial on all six original counts.
There is a whole lot of histrionics and pearl-clutching going on in certain circles concerning Polanski’s arrest last weekend:
Pleading guilty to unlawful sex with an underage girl — the drugging, raping and sodomizing of a 13 year-old — isn’t stopping Hollywood from ginning up an indignation campaign over the possibility of fugitive director Roman Polanski being held accountable for his crimes. Yes, these are the values of those who control the most powerful propaganda device ever created. Which begs a question: If his unspeakable deed doesn’t meet the standard, what exactly would Roman Polanski have to do in order to become a pariah in this town … I mean, besides vote for Sarah Palin?
While Hollywood and some progressives are leaping to protect a man who drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child, conservatives are bashing Polanski and anyone defending him. Amanda Marcotte is on the right track but doesn’t quite have it:
But I couldn’t account for the passion behind the defenses of Polanski—not from the French or from Hollywood—until I happened to pop on over to Hot Air, and saw that the conservative bloggers are all of a sudden deeply concerned about rape. Was there a moral epiphany, I thought, and can we count on them to stand firmly against rape in the future? Or is this just an exception because of the youth of the victim?
I think it’s a little of the latter, but reading Allahpundit, I realized what was going on: He compares it to Chappaquiddick, singles out Hollywood, sneers at art, and all of a sudden I realized what was going on. The defenders of Polanski are people that conservatives hate no matter what they’re doing: lovers of arty film, the French, Hollywood, people who travel to foreign countries and people who speak multiple languages. And just as conservatives couldn’t give two shits about a young woman who dies in a car accident when anyone but a liberal politician is driving, I’m afraid we have another opportunistic faux outrage so they can strike at the real villains: art, foreignness, Hollywood liberals.
I don’t buy Amanda’s assertion that conservative bloggers did not care about rape until Polanski was arrested, but they are certainly taking advantage of the political opportunity being presented to them. I can hardly blame them for doing so.
If we step back from arguing about Polanski himself and look at what is happening right now, you see a bunch of prominent people defending a man who drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child. Most or all of those people are associated with the liberal/progressive politics and the Democratic party. Some of them endorsed Barack Obama and donated to his campaign.
Argue all you want about defending Polanski’s constitutional rights, but if you defend Polanski you are defending a man who drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child. How do you think that will play with the magical “swing” voters in middle America?
If Obama’s Department of Justice and Secretary of State Clinton wimp out on this and don’t do everything they can to bring Polanski to justice, they will be handing the issue to the conservatives all gift-wrapped with a nice bow on it. The conservatives will say:
“Liberal Democrats defended a man who drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child!”
The worst part is that they will be telling the truth.
BTW – The picture at the top of this post was taken from this preview of the pro-child rapist movie “Roman Polanski: Wanted And Desired” that appeared on HBO:
UPDATE:
The transcript of Polanski’s guilty plea can be found at The Smoking Gun
Polanski admitted he was guilty and stated under oath that he knew the victim was only 13 years old when he had sexual intercourse with her.
Here is the link to Polanski’s plea transcript where he admits he knew she was only 13 years old when he had sex with her.
UPDATE II:
digg!!! tweet!!! share!!!
Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine
Filed under: General, Sex Scandal of the Month Tagged: | Roman Polanski
If someone can find me embeddable clips from YouTube from yesterday’s The View please let me know so I can add it to my post.
Whoopie said this yesterday:
WTF is “rape-rape?”
Non-YouTube versions of the clips I’m looking for can be seen at Jezebel
Oh how nice, Whoopie “knows”, I feel so much better about this now. Really how many degrees of rape are there to people like this?
Well, let’s see: There’s rape-rape and rape-rape-rape and then there’s kinda-sorta rape and might-be rape. Geesh, can you imagine someone being charged with felony rape-rape. It’s like some sick SNL sketch.
I’ve had enough of the View and stopped watching the show altogether many years ago. Sherri Shephard, who once believed the world was flat, is actually making sense for once. For these women to even question whether a 13 year old child was “rape raped” on a show that caters to women and women’s issues is enough for me to turn off the tv for good. Why not put some educated women activists on this show instead of entertainers who live in Polanski’s world of wealth and privilege?
Rape-rape is when you are physically assaulted, beaten, and threatened with your life, I believe. I recogniz the distinction because I experienced what I would call rape-rape. I fully believe that date rape is crime, but I also believe there are gradations of assault, whether we are talking about date rape or rape between strangers.
My friend needed 20 stitches to her genitals after a “date” rape. She had to crawl naked and bleeding to a neighbor’s house to escape. The rapist got off cuz it was just a “date.”
Drugging and raping a child is “rape-rape.”
I apologize if I come across too harsh, Inky. But it’s very painful for me to hear date rape described as a lesser degree of rape. It’s just not true. In all the cases I intimately know of it is always a forced, physical assault.
I never meant to suggest that date rape a lesser crime. If someone is physically assauted and threatened with their life, it’s a rape-rape, pure and simple. But I have known of date rapes that were less traumatic.
I have a very good friend who was raped a few years ago, went through the trial and everything, and her assailant got off scott-free. One of the reasons I’m not as sanguine as everyone else here about having Polanksi extradited and tried as that there is no guarantee that he will be convicted, especially since, even at the time, Geiner had a very poor memory of what happened. Perhaps that won’t matter, because consent is not at issue in a statutory rape case. But in any event, it is almost assuredly guaranteed that Geiner and her mother will face additional pain as they are put through the trial once again.
I still believe that mercy is underrated in this world, and I admired Geiner’s expression of it, even if no one else here does.
But hell, the trial will make for excellent Court TV, so sign me up, I guess.
In my opinion the emotional harn from repeatedly being placed in close proximity to the person who violated you is just as bad as any violation by a stranger.
For the record, I experienced both as a pre teen.
I don’t think court TV exists anymore, does it? At least they don’t run trials. And of course, you *did* say there are gradations of rape.
Just for the record.
Mercy is both underrated and underpracticed.
It would not, however, be merciful to Polanski’s potential victims to put them in jeopardy because mercy to for an admittedly fine artist gave the one(s) excercising mercy a ripple of warm fuzzies. I’m for mercy for the thirteen-year-olds on this one. Pedophilia is a relapsing condition. Incarceration is the only known preventative.
Hey BostonBoomer, if you are going to quote me, quote me correctly. I said that there were “gradations of assault.”
Just for the record.
But whatever. I will go to my grave believing that some rapes are more traumatic than others. I guess that makes me an evil, despicable person.
I don’t know what’s happened to this site, but it used to be a place where people could offer differing opinions without being demonized, as “confounded” was below. I used to have so much respect for this site, but I can see that I don’t belong here any more.
California recognizes 14 different methods of rape. They include rape by force or fear, rape of an unconscious person, rape of an incompetent person. All 14 are considered rape and carry the same penalty.
There are a number of other sexual offenses such as sodomy that are not considered “rape.”
California also has enhancements for felonies committed using a weapon, infliction of bodily injury, etc.
When someone argues that the victim has to be badly beaten for it to be rape, they are both misstating the law and telling many victims that they weren’t “really” raped.
Inky,
For someone who just corrected my paraphrasing of your comment, you sure read a lot into mine. Where did I say you opinion makes you an “evil despicable person?” I didn’t even come close to implying such a thing. Please don’t read your own meaning into my words.
And as for “confounded,” he demonized himself.
Myiq, I hope you realize that I never made such an argument.
BostonBoomer, maybe you can tell me what were you trying to suggest when you misquoted me “for the record” as saying that there were “gradations of rape” if it wasn’t to suggest that I have a dismissive and despicable callousness toward some rapes?
I understand the law, but (rather stupidly in retrospect) began my comments by trying to explain what I thought Whoopi was trying to say, not that I even agreed with all of what she had to say. But neither she nor I were talking about the legal definition of rape.
I don’t see how confounded “demonized himself.” I thought his first comment, regarding judicial misconduct, was one of the most interesting and fact-filled comments on this thread. I never had the chance to read his subsequent comments that were deleted, but the fact that his comments were deleted and he was banned from the site bothers me a lot, given what I was able to read of what he wrote.
I think that Spammy ate my last comment.
Oops–it just now appeared. Thanks for that.
but the fact that his comments were deleted and he was banned from the site bothers me a lot, given what I was able to read of what he wrote.
If you had read the comments that were deleted you would be less bothered but a whole lot more sickened.
Trust me Inky, that was one sicko. It went bad after a bit. Let’s just say NAMBLA would be proud of him.
It’s a horrible crime either way. But when considering the pathology of the rapist, in a way date rape is a worse crime than stranger rape, because in date rape the assaulter is betraying the trust, and frequently the authority, he has been given. Isn’t it more evil to prey on your friends and family rather than on strangers?
*Lurker alert*
Trying to compare which kind of rape is more traumatic is like comparing whose ice is colder. It just can’t be done. All different kinds of rape are horrible in their own ways.
Hi Lucielle,
Welcome…comment more often.
You are so right!
Thanks guys!
Some rapes are more physically traumatic. That much is for sure. I can also lay claim to having been a victim (god, how a hate that word) aof a date rape. The person I was with would not take no for answer. Afterwards he cried and felt miserable and wrote me a long letter about it. Actually, my stranger rapist cired afterwards and begged forgiveness and promised to seek help, blah, blah, blah. Why do I always get the weepers? I just know that in my case, the date rape was less traumatic, both physically and emotionally, and perhaps that has colored my thinking on this issue.
Inky, I worked at a rape crisis center long enough to tell the difference between a crank call and the real deal. Imo, there is a tone-deaf quality to your comments.
Didn’t Whoopi ask John McCain on The View if she would have to return to slavery if he was elected? It was in the context of choosing Supreme Court nominees.
I’m glad to know that she can read so much into situations. She could foresee a “return to slavery” in one case, and knows this is not rape-rape. Maybe she should spend less time on what she “believes”, which is immaterial, and more time thinking about what she says.
Maybe she should just refocus on being a good comedian again. She was once a pretty brilliant comedian. Now, not so much. I still laugh when I think of her old standup routine.
She was brilliant in the color purple. A whole other look at abuse of women.
good point. Under that standard, the Color Purple didn’t really have any ‘rape-rape’, so it’s all good for Whoopie, I guess.
A brilliant actor.
she was back on today saying that he was only guilty of statutory rape because all the other charges were dropped. She is ignoring the testimony of the girl who said she “SAID…GET AWAY FROM ME”. She refuses to realize or knowledge that there was a plea bargain, at the urging of the girls family because they did not want her to have to go to trial. The fact that there was a bargain does not mean that he was not guilty of anything more.
I think her problem is that she is too influenced by the hollywood crowd she has become a part of. Frankly, if there is anyone in the A-list movie business that feels he should be returned to face the music, I wish they would speak up. I made my living for a few years in the theater. I love creative types, but my faith in yet another group of people I have always identified with is shaken. Oh well, I always knew Allen and Nicholson were creepy given the way they treat women in their lives.
Maybe that would be if Polanski beat the girl and left her for dead? I just don’t get why people are defending this. The discussion at Talk Left is a riot. No one is allowed to say anything real, so they’re all talking about esoteric legal issues. There’s a good piece over at Huffpo, amazingingly.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nina-burleigh/genius-and-young-flesh_b_302515.html
If Whoopie had experienced “rape-rape”, she wouldn’t utter one thing about him being brought to justice.
Hollywood is totally out of touch with the rest of society.
We need to stop watching them.
READ
It sickens me to see Hollywood types coming out to defend this monster. I don’t care if he is the most talented director on earth : he is a scum feeding pedophile.
Where were these bleeding hearts when the “Jena 6″ occurred? When the Duke lacrosse players were unfailry accused? They make me sick to the stomach.
If priests can be ( correctly) charged with molestation decades after the fact,why should Roma Polanski be let free?
I say throw his ass in prison where it belongs .
“I say throw his ass in prison where it belongs ”
You and me both.
CNN is saying that Woody Allen is demanding Polanski’s release. Birds of a feather….
djmm
okay, but this has nothing to do with pedophilia which is the sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, not girls who have hit puberty and have the breast etc…. to prove it.
Some men think that the minute girls hit puberty they are fair game. The guy’s a scum bag, but he is not a pedophile.
We need to rethink that whole “puberty” thing in terms of how we define pedophilia. Puberty isn’t all or nothing. Some girls develop breasts a year or two before they menstruate. And while the average age of menarche is 12-13 years, some American girls menstruate at the age of 9 – or younger. Also, onset of menarche is variable dependent on a host of environmental and dietary factors along with race and body mass index. I don’t see how the law can support the argument that sexually violating a post-pubescent 9 year old is a lesser offense than sexually violating a pre-pubescent 9 year old.
no one defines it as a lesser offense… it is simply the definition of a pedophile. They are attracted to children who have no secoundary sexual features. Age has little to do with it.
When we term all abuse as pedophilia we do an injustice to the older girls and boys being abused. It is precisely the fact that they have developed that makes them fair game for men who otherwise are either straight or gay and sleep with adults.
Perhaps I need to restate it differently. I suppose my point has to do with a legal question that is unclear to me. There are some teenage girls who DON’T have secondary sex characteristics; and there are some much younger girls who DO have secondary sex characteristics. In such cases, how does the law define pedophilia? It’s my understanding that pedophilia is a more grievous legal offense. Is it not?
I’ll come out and say it: my point is that I think it’s accurate to call Polanski a pedophile. Maybe by parsing the details of biology, and the legal definition of pedophilia, I’m confusing the issue more than I’m clarifying it.
Past time for yet another of Arthur Silber’s posts on tribalism.
I really, really, really want to live in a world where we don’t need them any more.
I have no tribe and I like it that way. A little from here, a little from there, and mostly whatever works is good for me.
Arthur Silber is back btw…finally!
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/
USA Today:
He ain’t no officer and a gentleman Debra, he drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child.
I think all of the defenders should turn over one of their own 13 yr. old relatives to a 43/45 year old man who will drug and rape their beloved child, and then see how they feel about it. This moral relativism is beyond the pale. There is no excuse. I don’t give a damn how “talented” he is.
Except the thirteen-year-old wouldn’t have a choice.
Well, there it is BB. You’ve just caught the Polanski apologists with their pants down. If Polanski hadn’t gone on the lam, he’d be a registered sex offender in CA now wouldn’t he? Movie revenue aside, he’d still be a rich man if he was paid for his baby sitting services by all of his supporters who say they’d be perfectly comfortable leaving their underage children in his care,
Like, Jeralyn (aka “Free Roman”) Merrit of TalkLeft who said, in no uncertain terms, that she would leave him alone with her 13 year old daughter. Good thing Jeralyn’s only child is a 25+ year old man who, I believe, is also on his way to becoming a criminal defense attorney just like his mom.
Debra says it is okay for a 43 year old man to drug and rape her 13 year old as long as he flees justice and stays away for 30 years.
Here is a comment from Reclusive Leftist:
Would that not assume that Whoopi believes his way of looking at the situation? I just find that rape or rape rape has little significance to me.I don’t care what they call it: it’s all the same to me.
Is that angienc? Gosh, I really miss her over here.
Not sure and me too
me too…
me 2
me 3
me 4
quit your whinin’ and send her an email
you can say catarina got you drunk and made you hit the “send” button
I did. I don’t think she checks that email anymore.
Well, if you’re lurking by chance angienc…we all miss you like crazy. Come back and see us!
That would be nice.
geez… i miss her too. She used to do all the cussin’ and profanity that I wanted to do.
yeah
She was the only woman I found who could cuss like I do and that makes me miss her too! Come back angie, I can’t be the only one using bad language with no asterisks!
ditto, has anyone seen her anywhere?
Let’s not forget, he also sodomized her as she protested. If she was so consenting, why did he give a 13 yr. old a drug? Give me a break. As if a 13 yr. old can consent to “making love” with a grown man.
I guess being a liberal means never having to say you’re sorry. Being a liberal and an ‘artiste’ makes you morally superior, don’t ‘cha know.
Now, he did not murder her, which I consider the only thing worse, but this reminds me of the Ira Einhorn case. He was involved with liberal causes (Earth Day, I think) and celebrities. After he killed his girlfriend and kept her in a trunk in his apartment, his wealthy friends spirited him out of the country. (I think it was during the trial, and he was out on bail.) Decades later he was finally extradited from France and is now in prison here in PA.
btw, Nicholson has always had a cloud over his head in my mind ever since that happened.
The detail that really made me sick was that the victim reported seeing/hearing Polanski talking small talk to Anjelica Huston after the rape.
Maybe them French ain’t so bad after all:
A youthful error. He was 44.
For Polanski and his ilk women age in dog-years, while men retain their boyish “youth” well into middle-age. God help me, but it reminds me of Obama who, at the age of 48, kept calling himself a “young guy” with “funny ears and a funny name”, eeew.
Jeralyn is busy watching the pro-child rapist flick but meanwhile she has her high dudgeon on:
Oh my! The judge was gonna lock RP up for the rest of the 90 review period and then order him to leave the country as a condition of probation.
RP couldn’t handle the thought of being deported so he fled the country and has lived in exile ever since.
WTF?
He should have served out his sentence and then be deported. That is the way it should be and that is the way it works. I guess people like Polanski think they are above the law.
ROFLOL!
Jeralyn has proven time and again that she is a celebrity advocate. Doesn’t matter what they do, she goes out of her way to defend them. I’m guessing her hope is that at some point a real celebrity who gets in trouble will remember how protective she is of the famous and give her a bite of the apple currently being enjoyed by Mark Geragos, Gloria Allred, and the like.
I think you’re right. Jeralyn loves to hang out with the beautiful people any chance she gets. She’s still vying for her big break to defend the next celebrity rapist or murderer. She’s the exact opposite of people like Somerby, Chris Floyd, Arthur Silber, etc. who write truth to power even if the powers that be don’t like to hear it.
Ugh. To my mind anyone who does this is a pedophile and a predator.
It’s really very likely he was abusing other underage girls whilst he was free. He did the crime, he should do his time.
not a pedophile, to be that she would have been pre-pubescent.
He is just an ordinary man with crappy social borders. He’s probably someone who loved the book Lolita.
Well so much for Huston’s statement that this girl looked like she could have been 25. She looks exactly like a 13 year old child was supposed to look. OMG, why didn’t this woman call the police. She had to know what he was doing to that child in that bedroom. Polanski needs to rot in jail and the judge was right in vacating that plea deal. Polanski probably never did anything like this again only because he knew for a fact that he’d have to serve out that sentence.
I cannot believe that there are people across the globe defending this child rapist. He is a convicted child rapist. He really did do the crime. This crap wasn’t made up. Simply amazing at the fools living in this world.
Check the update above – Polanski admitted under oath that he knew the victim was 13 years old when he had sex with her.
(he didn’t admit to drugging, raping and sodomizing her though)
Here is the link to his plea transcript where Polanski admits he knew she was only 13 years old when he had sex with her.
Yeah, I was just fixing to write that it didn’t matter how old she looked anyway. I don’t think my thought was clear here. That was just a defense that I had read earlier that Huston supposedly made that I didn’t think made sense. It was her excuse for non-action in the face of a horrific crime.
Sadly, Anjelica Huston’s father, John Huston was also a movie director who took advantage of young women. The cycle of abuse/violence is passed down generation after generation.
I am so confused. Was Polanski really a photogapher for Teen Vogue or was he just pretending to be in order to lure this child into a lurid situation? Didn’t the mother question this? It is not making sense to me that a famous director was playing photogapher for vogue. Also, I have read that Angelica Houston was present in the home at the time. Did she know what was going on? Didn’t she wonder why a thirteen year old child was alone in a bedroom with Polanski? Forgive me as I was a high school sophmore living overseas at the time this all happened. Please enlighten me.
If Hollywood remains outraged over this case, then it makes one wonder how many deals and agreements are hashed out at parties where illegal activities are going on.
If no one in Hollywood takes the other side, that will look really bad.
Didn’t they sort of “rape” the prisoners at abu Ghraib prison … and they took pictures, just like Roman Polanski did with the 13 year old. Obviously, the guards were just trying to do their “Roman Polanski” thing.
Roman Polanski = abu Ghraib
You have to be kidding me:
He’s been hunted since 1978 because IT TOOK THAT LONG TO CATCH HIM!
Plus, they did not pick a high profile event just to be dramatic. That was where they were able to find him.
Actually, Polanski has a home in Switzerland, so they could have arrested him there. I’m not sure why this particular time was chosen to arrest him.
My question is answered in the Newsweek article. The DA tried to arrest Polanski twice when they learned he would be in countries with extradition ot the U.S., but Polanski found out about it and cancelled his trips. It takes awhile to get the paperwork together apparently.
“IT TOOK THAT LONG TO CATCH HIM!”
That’s pure BS and you know it, myiq. Polanski’s been living and traveling openly in Europe for over three decades, and even maintains a house in Switzerland. So the Swiss only just now discovered his presence amongst ‘em? Please…
As for MMW, who asked (downthread) “How can a woman [Whoopi],…make those statements?”
Maybe because she’s a woman with a more realistic view of 13-year-old girls? Especially considering that the 13-year-old in question had already consented to sex with another man or boy before Polanski forced himself on her?
Did he also force her to come back for the second shoot, despite the fact that he’d made her feel “uncomfortable” during the first session? Did he also force her to drink the champagne and take the ‘ludes?
And let’s talk about her mother for a minute, this mother who supposedly has claimed Polanski “befriended” her in order to get at her daughter. So she didn’t know about Polanski’s preference for very young girls? She’d never heard of Nastasia Kinski (or Sharon Tate, for that matter)?
So poor little trusting her allowed Polanski to photograph her daughter UNSUPERVISED BOTH TIMES, even though Polanski had allegedly made her daughter so uncomfortable during the first shoot that she didn’t want to go back for the second, as aforesaid?
And as for everyone (in the earlier thread) getting all squishy about the photo of a beaming Geimer at the premiere of the HBO documentary, I’m sorry but I don’t see a victim there. I see someone who’s–apparently–fine with the documentary (which I haven’t seen but understand views Polanski sympathetically) and fine with the attention.
it’s shocking to me that on this so-called “liberal” blog you and others are actually calling for the now elderly Polanski to be locked for the rest of his life, and not just for what he’s already admitted to, but for what he MIGHT have done since 1978 –or what he MIGHT do in the future–with the aid of Viagra, of course.
When did TC turn into Free Republic anyway? I’d expect this sort of class hatred and resentment, the sneering at “Hollywood elites” and “bleeding-heart liberals” and “moral relativism” over there, not to mention the sentimentalizing of children and of this increasingly toxic culture.
To see it here it flabbergasts me.
Let me get this straight because someone as had consensual sex, it therefore becomes alright to rape them?
Furthermore Whoopi Goldberg is no more an expert on 13 year old girls than any other woman who ever was one and it’s absurd to call her one.
Oh and for the record I sneer at anyone who rapes and sodomizes a 13 year old child. I don’t care if they are calling themselves liberal or otherwise.
“Let me get this straight because someone as had consensual sex, it therefore becomes alright to rape them?”
That’s not what I said, and that’s not what I meant. Furthermore, I’m a woman and I’ve been raped.
As with Samantha Geimer, I was a pretty teenager who’d already had one consensual sexual relationship. The difference was, my rapist was a friend my own age (18) and he wasn’t a pedophile, just an arrogant snot who insisted he was doing me a favor by showing me what sex with a “real man” was like, since my first lover–a mutual friend–was conflicted about his sexuality, or so the snot claimed.
But it was still rape–I kept resisting and saying no, and he just kept on keeping on. OTOH, it wasn’t “rape-rape,” and I completely understand the distinction Inky and Whoopi are making. I wasn’t brutalized or physically hurt in any way, and after all these years (I’m 66) it’s simply a faint, unpleasant memory.
Which is how Samantha Geimer has described her Polanski encounter, if I’m not mistaken.
A lot of attention is being paid to fueling obvious anger over what happened and minimal discussion to parallel issues such as the one you are bringing up are being presented without people being called some vicious names.
You are discussing taking the power back from the rapist after the fact and you are to be commended for being able to do that.
Rape is rape.
Violence and/or bodily injury are not elements of the offense. The rapist doesn’t need to use a weapon or even make threats. The victim doesn’t have to fight or scream.
Rape is sexual intercourse without the consent of the victim.
I really am happy that you were able to overcome that trauma, but I do think that any rape has to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It is unlawful for a 43 year old man to have sex with a 13 year old. With all due respect, and I really mean that, I believe that you and Whoopie do a real dis-service to all of the women in the world that are raped and are not able to think of it as “simply a faint, unpleasant memory”. I think that most women fall into that category.
The fact that the victim’s mom had bad parenting skills, or that the child was not assertive enough(in your opinion) does not diminish the crime and neither does the passage of time, The documents seem to suggest that the reason the mother pushed for the plea agreement was because her child was so traumatized. I do not understand how the argument can be made that the child was not traumatized by the event.
As to Mr. Machi’s comment a woman can and does take power back from the rapist by insuring that his sorry ass is thrown in jail where he can not continue to sexually abuse others.
this is not about what the victim wants. She got what she wanted when he was given a plea bargain. This case is about saying it is not okay to rape a child and there are consequences.
BTW…..where the heck have you been not knowing most people at this site sneer at elitists. We do, because they are exactly the lemmings that gave us a president Obama who can’t lead his way out of a paper bag.
Oh Jaysus – Here we go again “she consented before”
crap. Please explain what bearing that has on her RAPE!
Come on, G-cat, don’t you get it? Once any woman has had sex, she’s fair game for rape. See how that works?
Jesus! I feel like I’ve been sent back to the early 1960s reading the mornonic arguments of “people” like “LandOLincoln.”
Are you kidding me? You think this is a republican issue? When did drugging raping and sodomizing an unwilling victim become okay? WTF is there that is a liberal about this?
Who has called for Polanski to be locked up for the rest of his life? I missed that one.
Maybe because she’s a woman with a more realistic view of 13-year-old girls? Especially considering that the 13-year-old in question had already consented to sex with another man or boy before Polanski forced himself on her?
Did he also force her to come back for the second shoot, despite the fact that he’d made her feel “uncomfortable” during the first session? Did he also force her to drink the champagne and take the ‘ludes?
You just revealed your true colors, sir. What is a realistic view of 13-year-old girls to you? Do you believe the majority of 13-year-old girls want – let alone have the ability – to consent to having sex with a middle aged man? Do you believe that rape can only happen to virgins? What does the fact that a teenage girl had sex prior to her rape have anything to do with the latter? Do you believe that Polanski’s victim – or any rape victim – deserves to be raped if they willingly enter their perpetrators home despite feeling uncomfortable? If someone willingly accepts a glass of champagne and drugs does that mean it is acceptable for the other person to force themselves upon their intoxicated victim?
You sound like a guy who would take advantage of a woman because you think they look “slutty” or because they got themselves drunk so they were “just asking for it”. You just spouted off the typical excuses of rapists everywhere.
OIC, you are one of those liberals who is so open minded that his brain fell out.
You also seem to think 13 year old girls are fair game for sex with 43 year old men who drug them and rape them even when they say no. That my friend makes you the exact type of moronic person who contributed to the atmosphere that made me a victim of rape an molestation at 13.
, not to mention the sentimentalizing of children and of this increasingly toxic culture.
To see it here it flabbergasts me.
Stay flabbergasted it obviously helps you to see stuff that isn’t there.
This RP defense cr@p is like a bad and painful flashback to the primaries where we have to be reminded (yet again!) in no uncertain terms that men are golden and women are sh!t. Someone please beam me up and get me off this crazy planet!
Can’t, Scotty says the dilithium crystals are shot and we’re sitting ducks in space.
Let me ask a question? Forgive me if someone has asked it already – I didn’t read the comments. I’m livid right now – because had it been JOE – F@&KING BLOW, it would have been rape-rape. Hollywood would not have come out against the arrest. What the F@$K is the definition of rape-rape? How can a woman, let alone one with a daughter make those statements? Any respect I had for Whoopie Goldberg just went up in smoke.
A 13 year old is a child. She cannot consent to sex with a 40 something year old. He drugged her – HE KNEW what he was doing. How isn’t this universally condemned? How many other perverts out there are they excusing?
It’s mind boggling. It’s about defending “one of their own,” it has nothing to do with the law.
Notice how Whoopie tries to rationalize it: “Well, not everyone looks at things the way we do here. Fourteen year olds in Europe are not seen the way they are here. Would I want my 14 yr. old having sex? I don’t know.” If you don’t mind your 13-14 yr. old granddaughter being drugged and forced to have sex, then child services should be looking into your parenting skills Whoopie. The more I see people distort what is right in front of their eyes in order to justify their own tribal loyalties, the more disgusted I am by pseudo-liberal perception. This has nothing to do with being a “liberal” or “conservative.” This is about the welfare and projection of a child–all children. There are reasons laws are created and enforced, and just because this guy has an Oscar does not excuse him from assault, or jumping bail.
No wonder the caucus fraud and other election violations were not prosecuted. No wonder Ahmadinejad gets to stand up and say the holocaust never happened. To many in the media, in politics, in Hollywood don’t give a cr@p about decency and the rule of law.
It’s all moral relativism these days. Well, some things are right, and some are wrong.
Drugging, raping, and sodomizing a child is immoral and illegal. There’s no relativism there.
The despicable comment right below yours is an excellent example. What kind of scum sucking cretin would you have to be for these asshats to not defend you? One doesn’t want to know.
“What kind of scum sucking cretin would you have to be for these asshats to not defend you? ”
A poor one, of course. If Polanski had been a construction worker when he committed the crime, he’d *still* be in jail.
I’m not sure what it says when Woody Allen defends him, however … pervs of a feather perhaps?
Watching that tape of Whoopie just made me sick. There is no justification for this type of behavior. Women have been abused in every way possible. We all remember this stupid election and the absolute abusive way Hillary and Sarah were treated. It all starts when women are children. In our society if we can accept this pathetic man raping this child, it makes it all the easier for abusive husbands to beat their wives, for male politicians to use sexist lingo, bosses to belittle the women under them and for the continual cycle of abuse that allows this male dominated society to judge women on the basis of their looks and gender and not on the content of their character! Speaking of character, it’s something Whoopie lacks. You can excuse her for this ignorant behavior if you choose to, but every time a woman promotes this male generated and male dominated debate about what rape is and isn’t, we step back in time to women being nothing but a possession of a man! I read the transcript. The girl in question was 13. She did say, “no” but beyond that her age screamed, “No!”
Judicial misconduct is the crux of the issue here, not Polanski’s actions.
Polanski:
1. plead guilty under oath to having sex with her. he’s innocent until proven guilty on all other counts as far as i understand our judicial system.
2. accepted a plea bargain sending him for mandatory psychiatric evaluation that could have committed him to a hospital or the criminally insane (the psychiatrist recommended probation)
3. accepted a revised plea bargain for a 90 day psychiatric evaluation in a state penitentiary (the new psychiatric team also recommended probation and released him after 42 days)
4. fled the country when the judge reneged on both plea bargains and was planning on sending Polanski to prison and require that he be deported upon release (which is outside the jurisdiction of an CA judge)
Think about that for a minute. Polanski plea bargains, the judge doesn’t uphold the bargain, but doesn’t allow Polanski to change his plea. Where’s the justice in that?
Polanski’s defense attorney, the lead prosecutor, the victim’s attorney, and the current judge assigned to the case all agree that the original judge committed substantial judicial misconduct in his handling of the case.
Polanski has both settled with and apologized to his victim.
There are much more pressing cases for both the US Justice Department and the CA courts to be focusing on. Perhaps the most ironic part of all of this is that California is releasing prisoners by the truckload. Is it really worth California taxpayers dollars to put away a 75 year old man who served his plea bargained sentence only to have the judge renege?
Of course not.
But bloodlust is bloodlust and some people just aren’t happy unless other people are miserable.
Poor Roman…I feel so sorry for the pedophile. Not. If he was so ill-served, why didn’t he fight the judicial misconduct instead of running away? He has lived a life of privilege and wealth in Europe. Poor, poor Roman.
I suspect, and this is purely speculation, that he had a healthy mistrust for the blind hand of justice after seeing how his case had been handled. Even the prosecutor in the case has said he doesn’t blame Polanski for running when he did.
Roman Polanski drugged, raped and sodomized a child.
Your defense of him is despicable!
Maybe he should have thought about that before he drugged and raped a 13 yr. old girl.
Too bad the mother of the child didn’t have a healthy mistrust of Roman Polanski, the pedophile, when she let her daughter go alone with this sick man!
To answer your assertions, a post from the previous thread:
myiq2xu, on September 29th, 2009 at 10:04 am Said:
What she neglects to mention in her rant about protecting the constitutional rights of criminal defendants is that the alleged misconduct by the judge took place post-plea.
The proper remedy is to either impose the agreed upon sentence or allow Polanski to withdraw his plea and stand trial on all six original felonies.
Just because their is some misconduct by a judge, juror, prosecutor or cop that does not automatically entitle the defendant to a “get out of jail free” card.
A plea agreement is entered into by the prosecution and the defense. It is presented to the judge who is perfectly free to decide not to be bound by the agreement. All defendants are, or should be, advised by their attorneys that the plea agreement is not binding on the judge. It is not judicial misconduct for a judge to refuse to go along with the plea agreement.
The judge had agreed. Twice. And backed out both times, because he was afraid he’d look soft. He was attempting to craft another light sentence when Polanski’s defense attorney cautioned Polanski against trusting the judge yet again. The next day he was in France.
This is ultimately an ego thing for someone at Justice or in the LA DA’s office. The likelihood Polanski will see a day in prison is minuscule, yet someone somewhere wants him for their trophy case.
Taking a darker, more conspiratorial view, why is it that Justice didn’t issue a warrant until 2005? Could it be Polanski’s outspoken opposition to the Iraq War? Could it have been a politically motivated slap at France (where Polanski is considered a cultural icon) for not supporting the Iraq War? Could his arrest now have anything to do with the fact that his new film, The Ghost, is highly critical of both the UK and US treatment of suspected terrorists? How deep does the motivation go to humiliate this man?
It’s not about punishment. Of that you can be sure.
It’s not about ego or any of this other crap, it’s about the fact that Polanski drugged and rapped and sodomized a 13 year old child. And for the first time in 30 years, they finally had a chance to catch the bastard.
He is certainly free to appeal or fight the plea or anything else. Again, in case it’s a bit too complex, he drugged and rapped and sodomized a 13 year old child.
… or raped… jeez…
I judge can vacate a plea bargain. Sounds like this judge looked at what RP was about to get by with and decided, not on my watch. Good for him.
Educate yourself on this judge. He presided over the Elvis Presley divorce, the Brando custody case, etc. He was a showman and an egotist. Not some paragon of virtue.
“Evidence of substantial judicial misconduct” – that’s the opinion of the CA superior court judge now assigned to the case.
The judge and his behaviors are completely irrelevant as these problems are all after the plea was entered. Up until he admitted he knew she was 13 and admitted he had sex with her, that is, he raped her by definition, there were no major problems with the judge. So other than possibly withdrawing the plea and going from there or otherwise appealing later, how on earth could you have a problem with someone who drugged and raped and sodomized a 13 year old child facing the legal system.
Is that you Jerelyn?
Probably Capt Howdy…if you read his constant selling of the documentary, it fits. Although, the grammar and spelling is above what CH generally achieves.
I give Polanski less grace because of his being a foreigner. Having lived around the world, the first thing we always did was understand the laws, and cultural attitudes where we were.
Oh God, BB, that’s just what I thought, ROFLMAO
I think confounded is Jeralyn M. too.
now you are just making crap up, or repeating crap made up by someone else.
Bottom line, RP fled justice.
oops, I see the commenter’s comments have been removed, and now it looks like I’m arguing with no one…
What a bizarre intruder that was.
You mean he was right to flee the country? And that it was all the Judge’s fault?
Put yourself in his shoes.
You’re a foreigner. You’ve committed a crime based on local laws. Your lawyer has counseled you to take a plea bargain and the prosecutor has accepted your plea. The judge has verbally assented to your plea behind closed doors. The first step is a psychiatric evaluation. The psychiatrist recommends probation – not incarceration. While this should end the matter, the judge forces you to an additional 90 day psychiatric evaluation. You accept. The new psychiatrist recommends probation – not incarceration – and lets you go after just 42 days. This now should end the matter, but again the judge decides it’s not enough and that he’s going to sentence you to prison, completely ignoring the agreed upon plea bargain. No opportunity to face your accuser. No requirement for the prosecution to make its case. No opportunity for reasonable doubt. No burden of proof. And you’re now facing up to life in prison for what you don’t necessarily consider a serious crime.
Would you leave that country if you had the chance? Of course you would. We all would.
You’ve committed a crime based on local laws
Ah, here we go. So drugging and raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl is a local law issue. Now I’m getting it. So that’s a cultural thing. And perhaps in civilized countries, drugging and raping and sodomizing 13 year old girls is just peachy. At least we now know where you’re coming from.
After hearing France’s defense of this pervert I no longer have any desire to go there. I have a 15 year old daughter. I wouldn’t feel comfortable knowing there are adult perverts there that would exploit her and a bunch of apologists that would assume a “boys will be boys” mentality. Yuck, what a sorry excuse for a civilized country.
You mean he didn’t necessarily consider it a serious crime because he was a foreigner?
Do you also mean that 42 days of psychiatric evaluation followed by probation should have ended the matter in Polanski’s mind?
Do you really think that that was the plea bargain in the judge’s mind?
Europeans take the protection of 13 year old girls very seriously, and always have.
Polanski had previously had a completely legal affair with 15 year old Nastassja Kinski while in France. It was her French Vogue photographs that lead to this girl’s encounter with Polanski.
He’d grown up in France and Poland – in a part of the world where sexual norms are more permissive than they are in the US.
You really should see the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. Sure it has an agenda, but it’s also got some really great information. You can stream it on netflix.
I only suggest watching it so you understand the facts of the case and the subsequent miscarriage of justice.
You are pathetic.
Raping a 13year old girl is not ‘ normal’ in Europe – you need any links to European websites – you name the language you can read and I am happy to forward to you some European outrage!
confounded: I don’t care where Polanski grew up. There are still parts of the world where stoning women and girls who are raped is acceptable. There are parts of the world where it is acceptable to rape women as weapons of war. Does that make it acceptable? Does it exonerate the criminal if they grow up in that environment but commits a similar offense on American soil?
Stop making excuses for this man.
I’m in moderation or spam.
So it’s not the crime, it’s whether you’re rich enough to buy asylum somewhere else! That’s justice for you. Poor people go to jail, wealthy, well they just find a new country that thinks sex with children is acceptable!
well if there is a place where raping a 13 year old girl is considered ok I would like to know where it is.
IT was against her will……why can you not understand that?
This is my favorite part from your screed: Polanski has both settled with and apologized to his victim
He drugged and raped and sodomized a 13 year old girl. It’s all find and dandy that she’s moved on and forgiven him 30 years later. What on earth does that have to do with the fact that he drugged and raped and sodomized a 13 year old girl? Do you really think she was the old child he molested? Seriously given the history of your typical child molester/rapist.
The other point that should stand out that you don’t mention is that he admitted he knew she was 13. Now him knowing she was 13 and admitting he had sex with her kind of says something. It says, say it with me, he raped her. Simple. Done. ‘Nuff said. He raped a 13 year old girl.
So in any follow up discussion you want to have, start by saying Polanski raped a 13 year old girl, but…. that will put you on the right footing.
Comment deleted – commenter banned.
(This isn’t a NAMBLA blog)
Forced sex after she was drugged and begged him not too. You forgot that part. That’s what she testified too. He plead to avoid that of course and of course he wasn’t found guilty of that. Yet. But when you compare these things, keep in mind what he is accused of please.
Now separate from that inconvenient issue for you, the other issue is that our laws say that doing that to a 13 year old is indeed pedophilia. If you want to reside here, you might want to get familiar with some of the big ticket items. You can’t behead your children when they talk back to you either. That too might seem strange to many outside of this country, but you don’t have to come.
Here’s the part you forget.
Roman Polanski was never convicted of:
a) forced sex
b) drugging
c) sodomy
He admitted to consensual sex with a minor.
Fortunately, in this country we still consider someone innocent until proven guilty.
Yes, he admitted to raping a 13 year old girl (by definition you can’t have consensual sex with a 13 year old). The testimony from both grand jury and trial was that she was drugged and clearly was not consensual. Of course he plea bargained his way out of that part. And of course the judge in the end wouldn’t accept something like that. It sounds like the judge didn’t handle that bit properly. So toss the plea and re-sentence or either try for another plea or appeal the eventual sentence.
Yes, he is not gulity until proven guilty of drugging. He admitted to sex with someone who can not be consensual, so he effectively admitted to rape. He did not admit to sodomy. So he is not proven guilty for that yet either.
He plead guilty and ran. He is a child rapist. Fact. He is not innocent.
confounded:
Here is the part you are ignoring: he wasn’t convicted of anything because he took a plea and avoided trial.
Now, answer the question:
Polanski took a plea bargain because he was:
MORE
-or-
LESS
likely to be convicted of some or all of the 6 counts?
Age of consent in Italy is 14, but only if one sexual partner is no more than 3 years older than the other-i.e. teenage sex.
CONSENTING sex is 16.
It is 15 in France, 16 in the UK, and 15 in Poland. Moreover Polish law expressly states that:
“Article 200. § 1. Whoever subjects a minor under 15 years of age to sexual intercourse or makes him/her submit to another sexual act or to perform such an act shall be subject to the penalty of the deprivation of liberty for a term of between 1 and 10 years.”
“§ 2. The same punishment shall be imposed on anyone, who records pornographic material with the participation of such a person.”
Please don’t make RP out to be a little innocent abroad.
Thanks for that clarification. So all of this BS about the poor foreigner who was caught off guard by our horrible, puritanical laws is exactly that, BS.
So far the arguments for him are:
- she wasn’t a virgin so it couldn’t be rape
- she was too young when she said he raped her, so it couldn’t be rape
- it wasn’t really rape because he didn’t kill her or nearly kill her
- in my country we’re allowed to rape little children, so it couldn’t be rape
- even though he admitted she was only 13 he still thought she was an adult
- you can’t believe what a 13 year old girl says
Anything else?
Thanks for this information, Laurie. Our visitor is not only trying to excuse rape of a child, he/she is a liar.
Thanks, Dandy. That’s a good summation. I suspect you’d do well at a bit of lawyering yourself, were you so minded.
For confounded, even though s/he’s no longer with us:
If you want to face your accuser;
If you want the prosecution to make its case;
If you want the state to bear the burden of proof;
If you feel the law is being unjustly applied or that you’re innocent and you want to defend your good name:
You GO TO F&CKING TRIAL AND MAKE YOUR CASE TO THE JURY.
(Sorry for the yelling. Used to work in a prosecuter’s office. I have very little patience with arguments why X should get off scot-free for a crime for which Y, having a thinner wallet than X, would rot in the pen for the rest of his natural.)
Age of consent doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it means. In the Philippines for example, age of consent is 12, but what Roman Polanski did would still fall under:
-rape “committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious”
and is punishable by reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment)
It would also fall under seduction and corruption of minors which also carry prison sentencing guidelines (used to be 6-12 years).
What are you, a member of the Man-Boy Association or something? Did you track down this site just to defend child molesters?
You are right. I want child rapists to be miserable. Preferably miserable and in prison.
the judge didn’t renege he didn’t have a chance to. You’ve got your facts all screwed up. Polanski did not serve his sentence, there wasn’t one yet. BTW, the judge is not bound by the plea bargain. That is the law. Polanski should have stayed, and paid the piper and this would not have been happening now.
In his autobiography he said he should not have his life ruined because he made love. He is unrepentant and thinks he did nothing wrong. That is the real issue here.
Why are you saying this? It’s in the papers that the judge did change the deal.
Instead of trying to fight every little thing, try looking at the big picture. The big picture is a bunch of men tried to dole out a sentence that looked like punishment but was actually very soft for the crime.
They all knew it wouldn’t fly so the judge recanted the deal.
What the judge did was not misconduct because male bias in favor of Polanski went into the decision making process, and that was what the judge was trying to correct and that should override any actual misconduct charge that Polanski’s defense team may try to invoke now.
reading comprehension not your strong suit? Try reading what I said again.
If that doesn’t help, try this….. there was a deal, there was no sentence.
It’s a ridiculous plea bargain, no jail time for luring a girl and then keeping her from leaving and not listening to her saying no, and then physically violating her?
This is a plea bargain arranged by men, for a man, and the judge realized that they were not going to get away with it and changed his mind. Too bad Mr. Polanski did not change his mind when the girl said no.
You mention SOS Hillary myiq–does this fall into her arena as SOS because of extradition? If anyone hears her statement about this, please post it asap. I can’t imagine Hillary, with her lifetime of service dedicated to the rights of women and children, would defend RP.
Well, she works for Obama. And if Obama says 13 year old girls are worthless as apparently many in Hollywood think, then she has to follow her bosses lead.
here’s one link with some info re: extradition. No statement .
http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/09/29/in_polanski_case_clinton_must%20_side_with_girls
The French foreign minister admits to writing to Clinton asking for clemency for Polanskyi.
This case really rips the cover from LaLaLand. The Hollywood bubble is its own special version of the DC bubble. Sex and drugs and how minors are treated in Tinseltown is a world unto itself. The dichotomy that is so starkly revealed here is how profoundly different most of us look at this and see it and how Whoopie, Winger and probably most of the Red Carpet set see it. Our world views on these issues are truly different. I think the difference also helps to explain how so many of us could look at Obama and see someone totally unprepared for the presidency on any day, let alone day one. And how the Hollywood set could look at him and see NOT his inexperience and con man rhetoric but see “a leading man” who could dazzle crowds and oh yes, make history—so if he has that charisma thing and history in the making—give him a pass on the rest. That is another version of the RP story—-but, but he is like gifted and special—so what if he is really screwed up on the sex side of things and goes for the little girls. Didn’t you read Nabokov for God’s sake.
Whoopie lives in a totally different world than we do. We could do an entire post and commentary on the sexual and drug mores of Hollywood and their treatment of minors. Just look at the screwed up history of so many child actors/actresses. Look at the levels of drug use. Why would M. Jackson believe it was a perfectly normal thing for a middle age man to have children sleeping in his bed with him and the doors locked.
I know the right wing noise machine is equally nuts. But Hollywood and Company hand them some real red meat every so often that keeps the hamster wheel spinning.
he should go to jail.just like anyone else
Just from a philosophical point of a view, if the entire encounter had either been completely consensual, or even initiated by the girl, would everyone feel exactly the same way as they already do?
Just curious.
Yep. She was 13, he was in his mid 40s. She was a child in every sense of the word. I see no difference between that and if who he raped was say 5 years old. No difference.
Comment deleted – commenter banned.
(This isn’t a NAMBLA blog)
And she wasn’t even a virgin. So either she was raped before or had had consensual sex before. But she never accused anyone else of rape so it must have been consensual.
Now you’ve played your real hand. If a women or girl child has ever been raped and has not accused someone, then it must have been because they really wanted it.
Now we all understand what and who you are. What you are made of.
Comment deleted – commenter banned.
(This isn’t a NAMBLA blog)
13 year old girls do not have “previous sexual experience” with authority figures/adults. IT’S CALLED RAPE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, PEDOPHILIA, ABUSE, and SICK.
I was suggesting that perhaps her previous sexual experience had been consensual
That’s not possible. She was 13 this time she was raped and possibly younger other times, if there were other times. So even suggesting such a thing is truly sick. It’s the most classic way of destroying rape victims in trials, you say they liked it or wanted it or they’ve had sex before. Let me say again, it is truly sick. For gods sake, think about that issue more. Have a heart.
Please ban this sick twisted freak.
I second the motion.
Ugh.
You said this:
And she wasn’t even a virgin. So either she was raped before or had had consensual sex before. But she never accused anyone else of rape so it must have been consensual.
That’s not a dissenting opinion as much as it is really sick, fucked up, philosophy. You have some serious mental health issues and are a danger to both women and children.
It doesn’t get any lower than your outrageous assertions about this CHILD. get it CHILD. No “consent” no “legal maneuvering” CHILD. What part of that don’t you get? There are some things that aren’t debatable. Sexual abuse of a child by an adult is NEVER debatable. PERIOD the end.
I don’t think it’s possible to lower the level of discourse from what you said. Perhaps you have no idea what that means and how many have suffered and died because of that attitude. I’ll cut you some slack. But please put some more thought into that. And really, stop thinking there’s a big difference between 13 and 10 or even 5 years old here. Look into child development a bit more and see what children of that age are really about and can handle. It’s a truly sad, sad situation that this 13 year old was damaged in this way, no matter what she says now. Actually sadly even more because of what she says now.
I’m with Dandy…this sick pervert has to go. I just vomited. Anyone that talks about a child in that manner does not deserve the right to discuss such vulgarities in public.
Why don’t you go back to the perverted sick twisted hole you crawled out of?
…That she’d previously had sex … and might have actually enjoyed it? God forbid.
You are truly one sick bastard.
Hello moderators… is anyone there?
I don’t know how to “ban” or he’d have been gone long ago.
Good Lord – are you so confounded you don’t know there are many ways to tear the hymen that don’t include any type of sex? Do you have any facts about that? “She wasn’t even a virgin” is the most disgusting comment of the many on this issue.
You shouldn’t be banned because of dissenting opinions, you should be banned for making people’s skin crawl.
Oh, and I’m the crabby one here, so I feel free to say to you: Fuck Off…
Well I think you are far too casual when discussing the rape and sodomy of a little girl.
… but that’s a personal choice
Again, you’re missing the whole point. It’s not a personal choice. That’s the problem. The pro-child-rape documentary certainly does say some wild things. We know what’s in it.
This is really sick. I’m sad you just don’t see it.
It’s really easy to label things and put them in neat little boxes, isn’t it?
I don’t agree with you so I’m a pro-child-rape person.
The documentary presents the miscarriage of justice and portrays Roman Polanski as a human being so it’s a pro-child-rape movie.
Demonize much else lately? I’m guessing on a daily basis.
Demonize much else lately?
Just you and other sick fucks like you.
Confounded – you lowered the level of discourse on this issue just by showing up.
I think “confounded” needs a time out, don’t you?
hit the switch BB
No, your contention is absurd. Do you have children? daughters? Have you ever been a 13 year old girl? From where do you derive that unfortunate opinion?
In other cultures it’s not “consensual” it’s a cultural and patriarchal expectation and usually with males of the same age. However, whenever and wherever the sex is an authority figure/adult with a child, it is R-A-P-E. Period.
Do you really think that girls of 13 like to be sodomized while under the influence of barbiturates by 45 year old movie sleaze bags?
Similarly if everyone agrees that the 13 year old girl should be beheaded by the father because of something she’s done (including the 13 year old), I would also feel this would be wrong.
And by the way, it’s not really a philosophical issue. It’s a child psychological issue. If you study child development, you know that a 13 year old can not be consensual in that context. That is rape no matter what either party thinks.
OTOH, if everyone agrees that pedophiles ought to be beheaded it would pretty much be ok by me.
If they didn’t want it, they wouldn’t dress that way.
Apparently you’ve never been a 13 year old girl confronted with the overwhelming sexual advances of a middle-aged male after being drugged.
Next question…
I certainly would. A thirteen year old is a child, regardless of what “confounded” thinks. A thirteen year old brain is nowhere near fully developed.
Personally, yes. I would feel the same way.
13 year olds can not consent to sex with 43 year old men.
OT
http://adugan-billclintonblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/bill-clinton-speaking-livestream-today.html
I posted this up stairs but everyone is still down here.
If anyone is interested ” Big Dawg’ is speaking later today
THE GIRL SAID NO. NO MATTER WHAT AGE SHE WAS,SHE SAID NO. IT JUST MAKES IT WORSE THAT SHE WAS SO YOUNG AND WAS BETRAYED BY AND OLDER MAN. CHILDREN ARE TO BE PROTECTED NOT BETRAYED
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
I agree that 99.9% of girls that age are as you describe in terms of maturity.
There are always going to be that one in ten thousand that actually is much more mature than their age.
Many times those kind of girls end up as leads in movies. They go into a casting session with their parents there and they just blow away everybody in the room, and they get the part specifically because they have the poise and demeanor of an adult.
This isn’t meant as a defense of Mr. Polanski.
In terms of my original question, of course it is wrong if drugs or any kind of force, manipulation, or inability to leave was involved.
Heck, how was he even alone with her is what I wonder.
I don’t think any non family male should have complete access to a child unless the parents are very close by or they know the person incredibly well.
This includes communicating on the internet (which didn’t exist back then).
It’s not pertinent whether she was “that one in ten thousand” of girls who is “more mature.”
What matters is that he was a dime-a-dozen, immature man who put his own sexual desires above the safety, and sanctity of a female child.
It doesn’t matter how she looked. Polanski admitted he knew she was only 13 years old.
My youngest daughter looked like she was 17 when she was only 11. She matured early physically only. She was still an 11 year old child mentally. When she would be out with my husband people who did not know us looked at him like he was a dirty old man.
By your reasoning she should not be protected. By mine she was a child and all children should be protected.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
Helenk – I looked the same way as a kid. That’s when you find out why dirty old men get called dirty old men.
“By your reasoning she should not be protected. By mine she was a child and all children should be protected.” end of your quote…
If this was directed towards me it is erroneous. My position, as stated in the same comment you are basing your response on, is that a young child of that age should not be left alone with an adult unless at least one parent is within talking distance, or the person is extremely well known to the parents and trusted by the family.
If her mother was negligent or even complicit it does not change his guilt in the slightest.
alcohol and pills were involved.
Say she had been that one in a thousand – how was Polanski to know that?!! The odds in your phantasy of the mature child (a very common argument among paedophiles) are still a thousand to one for any sexual encounter to be rape. And NO so-called “mature” 13-year-old, even if she was sexually active would actually be attracted to a 44-year-old man anyway.
This is beside the case anyway since he DRUGGED her and she said NO.
The idea that men shouldn’t have access to children just propagates this culture where it should be normal that men are sexually attracted to the idea of raping children. I had several non-family adult men who were important to me growing up and none of them ever treated me in a sexual way, ever.
More troll crap. This aren’t “my fantasies.”
And if you’re going to repeat numbers, repeat then ACCURATELY.
The thing I think is most relevant to quelling support for Mr. Polanski is identifying the sequence of actions that preceded the final situation she found herself in with Polanski.
If you don’t agree, that is your right, but I would ask that you point your witchhunting accusations and labels somewhere else.
Read the victim’s grand jury testimony (the transcript is a The Smoking Gun)
She describes what happened in detail.
Polanski did what many sexual predators do – he gained the trust of the victim and her mother, offered to take pictures of the victim for a magazine and then when he had the victim alone he drugged, raped and sodomized her.
BTW – You have now repeated yourself 6-8 times on this issue. If you think it is important then do the research and then tell the world what you found.
I was one of those girls… it was all an act. You can not be more mature than your years. It is impossible. You may be more mature than average…but not beyond your years.
Can’t believe Whoopi’s stated rationale behind her support for Polanski evading the legal consequences of his rape & sodomy of a 13 yr old child.
I used to question how anyone could watch the View since its cast included the two most annoying women on the planet (Walters & Behar) but now it’s up to three. Does this show continue because we have a painkiller epidemic in this country?
I’d like to know more backstory about the girl. Was she a talented young actress whose life Polanski shredded, perhaps even destroyed what might have been an amazing career?
Was she supposed to be in the movie and instead lost the part so Polanski could have at her? Did Polanski not give her the part specifically so he could be a predator?
Quit asking questions that are not relevant and quite frankly SICK. None of that matters. All that matters is he drugged her and sodomized her.
God help me if that ever happened to my child.
I really find your response offensive. Just because somebody wants to know how someone like Polanski created a situation that allowed him to do what he is not something to close your eyes over.
I’d rather know how he connived his way into her life than talk about the actual acts. Talking about the actual acts ONLY is kind of sick, isn’t it?
What difference does it make? What if he offered her a piece of candy and a ride home?
Maybe she intended to have sex with him but changed her mind. Maybe she flirted and teased him by talking dirty. Maybe it was her idea to remove her clothes. Maybe her mother gave him permission.
So what?
Roman Polanski drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child.
It would be wiser to know the backstory along with the act itself.
It’s how educated people learn about the warning signs so they themselves can prevent similar situations in their own surroundings.
To only focus on personal anger over the situation, and not share ways to prevent such situations from occuring again seems morose to me.
Do you know the backstory? The official one? The rumor versions?
Why don’t you tell us what you know?
What is wrong with you in your warped mind trying to find justification in such a heinous exploitation of a child???
Did you look at her photo at the top of this post?
WTH difference does any of that make? Go away. You’re embarrassing yourself!
In the time you have spent writing your obtuse comments, you could easily have read the court papers and the many articles linked in myiq’s posts and the comments on them.
He broke the law. It doesn’t matter what the age of consent is in other countries, only what is is in California.
He is under arrest in Switzerland so he can fight extradition there if he so desires. If he is extradited to the U S he can fight the charges here. Unlike his victim who couldn’t fight at all.
Age of consent in Poland is 15, just as it is in France.
And, like you say, what counts is what it was in California.
Can I start a rumor? Future Confluence Headline: “Obama Commits Political Suicide By Pardoning Polanski.”
The pardon would, of course, be followed by a champagne and Quaalude summit with Obama, the victim and Polanski.
I have to say as the token scary evangelical conservative in residence that it is nice to see some sober minded liberals whose brains have not fallen out in defense of the indefensible. It is so obvious that this guy should be locked up, as almost everyone here agrees on. When lunkheads like Whoopi go on TV splitting hairs on what rape is, it gives credence to the right wing meme that liberals are all loony moral relativists. I’m glad to know that most aren’t.
Thanks for posting this video clip – although it ruined my evening. Never spend much time thinking abt Whoopi, but pleaaze, you cant be serious…rape-rape? We need to know the facts before we talk abt it, yeah Whoopi why dont you just do that!
Just in case there is any doubt, raping a 13 year old is in Europe not a typical pasttime and outrage of the population here shows clearly that everybody is not thinking like some ‘art appreciating’ politicians. And lets not even mention Nastassja – in Germany she is best known for the crime TV film (1977) where she played a girl seducing her teacher. When somebody threatens to reveal the indiscretion, she commits murder, killing the teacher.
Wow a pro child rape/molester in our comments. Isn’t it fun.
Two of them, it appears.
boomer — can you check your mail?
Joy of joys. Did someone open the hell mouth and let some demons out? (yep, buffy fan)
Funny finding myself on the same side with the RW. But then again, everything got turned upside down last year. Part of telling myself that I work under no label, is accepting that sometime the company (or some of it) will surprise me. Just accepting that Bizarro world is not on another planet after all.
Meanwhile, misogyny is triumphant!
It is indeed an upside down world. The left wing hollywood types who I like sometimes are for child rape when the rapist is one of their own. And yet when prisoners in Iraq where raped, they didn’t like it. Here we don’t like rape no matter who does the raping. I guess we’re a bit unusual. Which seems to make us scary to some folks.
We’re immune to groupthink. That’s a foreign concept to the rest of the partisan blogosphere.
BB – Thanks for hauling off whatever the hell that was.
Second that. I think I need a bath after confronting that sicko. What the hell is wrong with people like that. I mean he actually said because she wasn’t a virgin it had to be consensual. God.
We’ve fed him to spammy. Spammy hasn’t eaten in a while and has been spending all of his free time sharpening his incisors.
You might have to give spammy some strong medicine after that. He was really twisted.
I have the sick feeling she/he really likes that documentary. I think I’ll avoid it if it comes back to HBO.
I don’t think I could stomach watching it either. I’m glad I missed it the first time.
Ha, myiq missed all the fireworks.
times of london on Polanski
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6852996.ece
from that article:
Once again, the point is only partly to punish the perpetrator himself; it is as important to signal the continued resolution of society that there will be no hiding place — not even advanced age — for those who do serious harm to others.
What kind of utter nonsense is this? Did you miss the part about him DRUGGING AND SODOMIZING HER?! What are you doing here? if you think you are ever going to change our minds that drugging and raping a child is somehow relative to culture, you can take it somewhere else. BTW: he WASN’T SOMEWHERE ELSE–he was HERE!
Jeez, I take a break and some pervert runs amok in here.
Thanks myiq. I was taking a nap and the next thing I knew I was reading that pervert’s pathetic pronouncements. Yucko!
OMG. what happened to the nesting? and everything is all whackadoodled up!
When people feed the trolls they end up talking to ghosts and messing up the nesting.
Ask Steven “The Ghost Whisperer” Mather
myiq,
Yup.
I’m a neophyte, like this guy, which sometimes results in unravelling threads.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sorcerer%27s+apprentice&search_type=&aq=0&oq=sorcer
s
Luc Besson – my new hero. Finally a French director who thinks that P should not be freed!
http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/movie-guide/French+fission+everyone+director+Roman+Polanski+side/2047563/story.html
Love the 5th element. Like a wild and crazy cool music video movie. Now even more reason to like the guy.
“I have a 13-year-old daughter, and if she were raped I don’t think that I would agree” with the French elite’s position, said film director Luc Besson in explaining his refusal to join the majority denouncing American “puritanism.”
DT,
Those of us who love the movie return the wink and nod to your “Love the 5th element.”
s
Yay!
[...] (with whom I often disagree) for not falling in line behind this abominable apologetic. From The Confluence: If we step back from arguing about Polanski himself and look at what is happening right now, you [...]
Good Goddess. That child could no more be mistaken for a 25-year-old than I could, and I’m a good many tread marks north of 20-anything.
Lock him up. Put him in permanent solitary for his own safety.
Lose the key.
Roman Polanski Raped A Child: A Primer
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/09/29/roman-polanski-raped-a-child-a-primer.aspx
Maybe there is a very simple reason why Polanski fled the US….could he have been worried to be sodomized in prison?
Could someone post all of the links or quotes to the official statements by NOW, the Feministy Majority, Valerie Jarrett, etc. ?
Surely they have made some strong statements about this issue.
And on another note. I hope everyone has watched the video of Hillary’s speech to the U.N. on Friday regarding violence against women and girls.
So good to see an old line 2nd waver standing strong. She looked beautiful and, as usual, knows her shit and walks the walk.
they are waiting to see what the democratic old boys club thinks first so they can, like proper ladies, go along to get along.
If some time was spent focusing on how he cornered this girl, it pretty much weakens his case and makes it much more difficult for others to defend him.
I am getting sick and tired of all the anger and hostility that seems to feed off of anger and hostility. Some of you really don’t want to know how Polanski created the opportunity to defile this girl?
Really?
He won the trust of the victim and her mother, then he betrayed that trust.
What difference does it make?
Roman Polanski drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child.
AM — and again some of us have read the 30 page Grand Jury transcript of Samantha answering questions about how Polansky set it all up.
You’re on the wrong blog with your accusations because we here do want to know the facts.
The facts of the case are well known and are in the public records. Why don’t you do your own research? Most of us are have already done ours.
This is the kind of response that just drives me nuts. I do a lot of research on a lot of topics. I researched the caucus contest results from the 2008 democratic race as much as anybody else.
Now I have to read that the only way I can educate myself is to just read ALL of the info myself? How about some balance in these types of topics? Sure, people will get angry over the situation at hand, but how about filling out the picture, actually defining the tipping point that led to Polanski having uninterrupted access to the girt.
We can learn how to prevent such incidents in the future by learning HOW they happened in the past, and YOU SHUT UP THE DEFENDERS of Polanski as well.
Festering anger, trying to be the angriest of the angry, while not providing the modus operandi is really not helpful.
If you don’t know the answers and we don’t know the answers and you want to know the answers but we don’t care about the answers then who should do the research?
Angry responses to a pedophile blogger (not you, but another commenter in this post) are pretty understandable. So from that fun set of exchanges many here are a bit testy. Right now it seems you’re doing a bit of trolling by talking about anger instead of the topic. And of course you started by posing a very troll oriented question about what if the 13 year old liked it or some such. You’re on thin ice already and you might want to get the point of any argument you want to make. If it’s coherent, you’ll be fine.
We can learn how to prevent such incidents in the future by learning HOW they happened in the past
You’ve got to be kidding. That’s so patronizing.
First what we’re battling over here is just trying to get people to recognize that this was a crime and that the 13 year old child who was drugged and raped was even a victim. That’s why we’re angry.
Once we’re no longer arguing over that basic concept, then sure, it would be a good idea to understand some more things for future prevention. But at this stage that is not a real issue, and you’re even bringing it up when the fight is over things like how because she wasn’t a virgin she couldn’t possibly have been raped, you sound like those arguing for the pedophile.
The way to reduce support for Polanski among his peers is to give overwhelming evidence not just about what happened, but how he may have orchestrated the entire encounter.
I’m really finding the tone here disappointing. Is this still a PUMA site? If not, I maybe it should be removed from DailyPUMA? Some of you really come off boorish.
dandytiger, don’t you even for a moment accuse me of such nonsense.
I never suggested anything about her liking it.
Who’s the troll?
To answer your original question:
Just from a philosophical point of a view, if the entire encounter had either been completely consensual, or even initiated by the girl, would everyone feel exactly the same way as they already do?
By definition rape in nonconsensual. I would therefore think that the victim was not raped. I would think that unlawful intercourse took place, and that Polanski furnished drugs to a minor.
But I would still feel that Polanski was a sick pervert that should be locked away so he can’t stick his penis in the vaginas and anuses of any more little girls.
Does that answer your question?
are you blind and deaf? He bribed her with fame and then he drugged her. It was forceful rape, it makes no difference how he got her there.
After helping defend the place from that guy I had to step out and re-sharpen the sword. Now I’m ready for any comers. And I’m granting no quarter. Prepare to see Davy Jones’ locker.
I found this helpful link at Slate at The Explainer’s Roman Polaksi roundup: What’s Unlawful Sexual Intercourse?
It includes information on the child rape laws and also this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2229853/
The key question is whether Polanski was unduly prejudiced and cannot receive a fair outcome. IOW – can the problem be fixed without dismissing the case.
Allowing him to withdraw the plea or imposing the agreed upon sentence leaves him unharmed by the judge’s misconduct. Letting a new judge decide the appropriate sentence would accomplish the same thing.
One problem Polanski has is that the judge never imposed any sentence – what he might have done is speculative, he could have simply imposed the agreed upon sentence.
Polanski doesn’t get to claim that the passage of time has prejudiced his rights because he failed to appear in court. The doctrine of “unclean hands” says that a party cannot benefit from their own misconduct.
Polanski should have showed up for sentencing and if the judge sent him to prison he could have filed an appeal – under those circumstances he would probably have been granted bail pending the outcome of the appeal.
Apparently, the parties involved agreed to a plea deal, then the judge, probably realizing the deal was too light, reneged on it, so Polanski skipped.
Because the judge changed the deal, Polanski’s attorneys are saying that is misconduct. However, the real misconduct might be have occurred if it was only men doing all the negotiating. If the prosecuting attorney and the Judge were both male, and they agreed to a too light of a sentence and then realized their mistake afterwards, one could argue that that is not misconduct, but simply correcting a mistake brought on because of male bias.
Incredible that there is so much sympathy for the child rapist/sodomist. Or maybe not so incredible.
d,
Given what I’ve read thus far, two things strike me.
First, the initial sentence was too much light. It was too light even after the judge tried to bulk it up. Why would the prosecution negotiate such a watered down plea, given the nature of the crime?
Second, Polanski may have a case for dismissal, which is bizarre and disconcerting. To what extent was the judge inclined towards misconduct by the prosecution’s willingness to accept the lesser plea?
MYIQ. I appreciate that these questions reveal my great unwashedness. Could you offer some clarification?
s
MYIQ,
The answer above takes care of the latter question.
s
In those days rape wasn’t taken as seriously as it is now–particularly the rape of a child. Much of the consciousness raising about child abuse and especially child sexual abuse happened in the mid to late ’80s.
The DA has never disclosed why he agreed to the deal – perhaps there were worried about protecting the victim. It is possible there were problems with evidence or the victim’s credibility but I’ve never heard anyone say that was the case.
I don’t see Polanski getting an outright dismissal but it’s possible. I’ll be shocked if he does.
I’ll be shocked if he is successfully extradicted.
My prediction is he will negotiate a guarantee of no prison time, waive extradition, return to LA to have his wrist slapped and then depart a free man.
That makes sense too. And then he’ll be free to come to the U.S. whenever he wants, and we’ll have to put up with it. Just keep young girls away from him, please.
This is exactly why publicizing the deceit that was required to lure the girl needs to be publicized along with the acts that took place. It helps take away any empathy that Polanski’s friends may try to foment on Polanski’s behalf.
d,
TY.
Intuitively, I think the climate weathers against the probability of dismissal. If he is extradicted, I suspect he might have done better by not leaving in the first place, given the lightness of his earlier treatment.
s
I disagree. I think he’ll get off with nothing–that is *if* he is even forced to come back and face the music.
BB,
MYIQ and you are close in agreement. He knows the law in theory and practise. You know the psychological implications. I defer.
s
Then again, as below.
California judges have to run for reelection and even appellate justices do not have lifetime tenure.
Most judges and justices are former prosecutors, and most of our appellate bench were appointed by conservative Republican governors.
This state is not the hippie heaven people seem to think it is. A few years ago the Cal. Supreme court ruled that life in prison for shoplifting was okay under the 3-strikes law.
But would they give life in prison to Wynona Ryder if she did it three times? The rich get a different brand of justice.
This post at Big Hollywood was exactly what I was warning about:
Here’s another from Hot Air:
I bet none of them know of the circumstances leading up to the encounter, so it becomes easier to just downplay the incident itself.
The girl was victimized by more than Polanski, if you limit the victimization to Polanski only AND also don’t put attention to how he set it all up, then it becomes easier for others to defend him.
It doesn’t make it right, just easier. Help not make it easy by not just being angry, but by publicizing the details that led up to the incident.
Please, try reading links sometimes. This site works on references, it doesn’t give short explanations of long topics without linking.
Myiq gave several references not only for this post but also yesterday’s, so have others. Just go back and check them, then you will know what commenters here are talking about in general, added to their own personal experience/anecdote.
I think it would be great to educate myself and perhaps others who read the comments so we can prevent similar methods from less famous personalities who may attempt the same thing.
I don’t believe being angry is enough. Actually being able to spot similar behavior in the future BEFORE it manifests itself into something real matters equally to justice being done in this instance.
Are you insane or just obtuse?
Learning details about how Polanski got access to the girl will help you how?
Those details are available. Polanski was a rich, famous movie director. The girl’s mother wanted to get her into movies. She thought Polanski would help. She allowed him to photograph her daughter and he took her to Jack Nicholson’s house and raped her. What more do you need to know, and how would that help prevent child rape in the future?
Now stop haranguing us and go do your research. Maybe you can write your own blog post about it. Maybe someone will read it.
Why is there this tendency to personalize others comments as if they are making them only for themselves. Obviously publicizing HOW Polanski manipulated the situation helps prevent the same thing from happening to ANOTHER GIRL.
Or do you prefer to simply stew over this case and not care if you could help prevent a future rape.
Why castigate those of us who believe exposing how these crimes happen is an excellent way to reduce new cases from ever happening.
COMMENT DELETED
Anyone who believes he raped only one little girl is wrong.
Polanski was, and is, a rich movie director. He can, with very little work, full-fill just about any wild sexual fantasy that a man could devise.
The fantasy he chose to full-fill was raping a little girl.
SICK. SICK. SICK.
Whoopi seems to be the only one who knows the facts in this case and makes sense.
Most people haven’t a clue re Polanski case and should at the very least watch the HBO documentary. At the very least they should take the time and do so before carrying on and on and on …. Netflix got it. You can watch it there instantly,too.
Besides, why is Switzerland so eager to please the American L.A. prosecutors after over 30 yrs of leaving him in peace (Polanski and his family own a vacation home in Switzerland). Anyone heard about the nasty Swiss bank scandal? It’s all political and Polanski is now used as a “Suendenbock” by the Swiss who try to get into the good graces of the US government after being caught in a big way.
It’s political and nothing else.
Uh oh, another NAMBLA member has shown up. There are some really sick people out there.
I can’t believe there is anything to dispute here.
Polanski drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child
That’s all anyone needs to know.
You might want to read some of the critiques of the HBO documentary. It was pretty one-sided. But you wouldn’t do that, would you?
Yeah, it left out a lot of important stuff – like the fact that Polanski didn’t “make love” to the victim, he drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child.
The people that get upset when you remind them of what Polanski did are the ones (like Jeralyn) who want to just sweep it all under the rug.
It’s fairly easy to argue for dropping a 31 year old statutory rape case, especially if the victim says she wants the case dismissed. When you say “rape” and “sodomy” it kinda bothers people.
I have seen that a lot today, “Go watch the HBO documentary. You can even watch it now on netflix.” (As if HBO docs are the end all be all of truth and enlightenment) “What?! There is a doc on HBO? Well, that’s it! Case closed!”
We already know the Prosecutor lied in the film and that the Polanski’s defense team was heavily involved in its creation.
Why in the world should anyone believe what’s in it?
Forgot to mention
I just wished Americans would get themselves just so worked up over the thousands and millions of innocent citizens who have been killed in the Bush and now the Obama wars during the last 9 years alone. Or the Goldstone report.
But nothing. If it is one thing they love ueber alles it is a celebrity sex scandal, no matter how old, no matter whatever.
Plenty of Americans are worked up about war and torture. It’s the media that focuses on celebrities and ignores war and torture.
I find it fascinating that so many people think violence against women is a minor issue. More women have been attacked, raped, and murdered that you can ever imagine. There is literally a war against women.
There were a lot of us who were “worked up” and have continue to be “worked up” about the wars…the media completely blacked out the coverage in the beginning and even now continues to distract. Go talk to the corporate masters who control the media.
The media coverage changes only when the citizen of a country demand it. I have read the Daily Howler for years now. No better media lesson (esp. re MSNBC) can be found anywhere. Besides, I haven’t watched TV news for over a year. I gave up immediately after the Dem primaries were over. Anyone else who went thru that knows what I am talking about. I never want to look and hear people like tweety, Olbermann and that ilk ever again.
Anyone who followed the last nine years when it became more obvious than ever how the media supports the government will understand that it is the sleeping masses who allow the media to carry on with impunity. You would think that war crimes, thousands of innocent people dead, rendition, torture, losing free speech and other personal freedoms would get the people out on the streets by the million. But not so.
There is no Peace movement in existence in the US and even Noam Chomsky seemed to give up in his beliefs that the US citizens would speak up and join revolutionary movements in times like these … compared to decades ago when people just started with baby steps in the 60s.
P.S. What is NAMBLA? I am rarely commenting on blogs anymore these days (not since spring 08) but I still remember many names, esp. Goldberry, who was one of my blogging buddies on kos.
No, and I am most certainly not sick. I do have my own opinion however, and plenty of knowledge of the whole case in question.
But let me ask the following:
If I am not welcome on this blog, please let me know. I will understand and you wont hear from ne again.
I don’t appreciate being called names and I certainly learned my lesson just like many of my blog friends during the primaries on kos and promised myself that will never happen to me again.
Felis
many of us who blog and comment here DO worry about these issues.
18 million Americans voted for Hillary, the media got what they wanted anyway.
Felis,
When you defend a pedophile predator, you have to realize that some people are going to think that’s “sick.” Everyone has opinions. You have been told to leave the blog, but just be aware that most of us here feel pretty strongly about violence against women and children.
bostonboomer,
“You have been told to leave the blog, but just be aware that most of us here feel pretty strongly about violence against women and children.”
I have been told to leave the blog? Please direct me to that post. I have not seen it.
And fwiw, I didn’t defend a pedophile pred. I consider this a political act by the Swiss in order to get into the good graces by the US government. They could care less if violence against a young girl was committed by Polanski. After all they didn’t care about it for over 30 yrs.
I thought this was worth pointing out. Why anyone would think right away that I do not feel equally strongly about violence against women and children is beyond me.
Ok I am done with this.
No more.
How come Jerry Lee Lewis wasn’t arrested for marrying a 13 year old?
It ruined his career–he could have been as big as Elvis. She was not only just 13, she was his also his cousin.
Why do you think Jerry Lee Lewis wasn’t investigated/arrested for murdering his wife? That’s how he got the nickname “Killer.” Could it have been because he was rich and famous?
He legally married her – no laws were violated.
He was still a perverted pedophile (JLL). Just because the law allowed him to exploit her doesn’t mean it was “OK” for him to do it. Geebus…back then women and children were exploited by the socially dominant constantly. Thank goodness we’ve at least evolved somewhat to be able to tell right from wrong.
Women used to to be the property of their husbands by law.
African Americans used to be chattel by law.
These preposterous arguments in support of this animal are disturbing.
At least when Jerry Lee did it his family and most of the people in the U.S. and Europe were outraged. Now we have prominent people defending a man who raped a little girl and people here comparing that to marrying a young girl. Jerry Lee wasn’t 43 when he married her either.
I know. It’s unbelievable. God help the children of our world with people still around who make those arguments. No wonder we have such rampant exploitation throughout the world. The child sex-slave trade is how these perverts now get their fix since most in society recognize how horrific that crime against humanity is.
All of these outrageous defenses being proffered here on behalf of Polanski are quite frankly unbelievable in this day and age. The assertion that “she” willing engaged with him is reason to excuse his behavior would therefore excuse every pedophile that lures a child to become under their influence. That is the argument people are making.
Children are maleable. They are taught to believe adults are there to protect them. To argue otherwise is to betray the trust we have asked of these innocents.
Children look to authority figures for guidance. When an authority figure sexually abuses that child in the name of “guidance” they should be punished by our society, not excused.
Very well expressed, thank you! That is the only argument that is really needed here, SoD. But we have people here who are actually defending rape and sodomy of a child and trying to deflect from what Polanski actually did to “how he did it.”
I abandoned the church years ago (couldn’t stand their praising Bush) but this morning I said a prayer for the children of our world. It disturbs me to my core to see this type of attitude expressed as though it’s rational debate.
Boomer, you should do a post on child psychological development so these sickos understand why this baby was not a willing participant.
That’s a good idea.
I can’t f*cking believe the defense of this rapist both from hollywood and the few deluded posters that were on this thread.
This was a child for cripes sake, you cannot get around this fact no matter what you say. As SOD stated above about chlidren being maleable, no matter how “mature” they appear or act, they are still look to adults for guidance whether they express it or not.
To take advantage of this is despicable.
Thanks myiq for highlighting this as you have and whoppi is a major, major disappointment. Shame on her.
test my first comment went poof
Let’s just juxtaposition this with the news that three American men (one of them aged 75) were recently arrested for traveling to a foreign country for ‘sex tourism’. They are charged with having sex with minors and are facing 30 years in jail for each offense. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/31/cambodia.sex.tourism/
If all these people think Polanski has done no wrong, how come they are not out there defending these men? I am sure that some of the 10- 12 year old children would even argue that they do not want these men prosecuted because the money they gave their families may provide the families with needed income. What Polanski did and what these men are doing is a crime against all of the children of the world.
Were any of the three men rich and famous movie directors?
The defense of Polanski is based on the fact that he is one of the elites – the rules don’t apply to them.
Actually, I do think 30 years is too much for that offense. I think we’ve gone way off the deep end in our child-sex-abuse hysteria and allowed hateful people to establish a system of “justice” that is hate-filled and venomous. It bothers me a whole hell of a lot. There are a LOT worse people out there than pedophiles, yes BAD as they are. But this wholesale targeting of them as if they were terrorists of the worst order really bothers me.
And no — and yeah, it really frosts me that I even have to make this fucking disclaimer — I’m not interested in having sex with any child
Who got 30 years for an offense? Are you referring to Polanski living in luxury in Europe for 30 years? That was his own choice. He didn’t have to jump bail. There’s no way he would have gotten a heavy sentence. And if he had, he could have appealed and got right out on bail.
You are obviously ignorant of the serious effects of child sexual abuse–either that or you just don’t care. But what happens to children and how it affects their development should be important to everyone.
Your comments on this issue reveal a great deal about you, DO.
Sorry but I really do think that there are FEW worse people than pedophiles.
Sex tourism preys on kids who have no family to protect them. They are alone in the world. And being used in that way just makes them feel as if they were crap and completely worthless.
I’ve even heard (on Italian TV-yes, they hate pedophiles over here too) of young girls in Asian countries, being slit open with a knife, by the sixty year old tourist so he could penetrate her. They are then left alone, in pain, and bleeding in a corner, to somehow survive.
Hillary on Violence Against Girls
Thanks for posting this. I hadn’t seen her response to my post.
Jerilyn Merrit is a self-righteous, anti-social, nut.
She’s managed to channel her anti-social tendencies into something socially acceptable (defense attorney), but she is just as anti-social as the perpetrators that she defends.
Puke city, baby.
Roman Polanski drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child.
There is nothing here to parse here. rape-rape???????? Whoopie is gone round the bend. So many of the LaLaLanders are depraved – yes, depraved. Whoopie recently said “this president is going to do everything differently, in a different manner” – Jaysus – same ole crook in the Bu$hit mode. If she is not on “meds” – scarey!
I have been traveling and not blogging – I can’t believe this utter distortion. How can a LEGAL blog continue to ignore truths. Just trying to catch up but I noted BDT is going to “not speak of Polanski” as he “loves” his movies?????? Cripes – man up you worm. Tepidly – elitely – ignore the truths – again? How delicate of him. There are so many good posters over there is the only reason I read it. Bizarro world continues – fracking scarey!!
Great post Mudlark!!
Actually, I live in L.A. with some family ties to the entertainment industry, and unlike Ms. Merrit, I am quite disgusted by Polanski and find child rape inexcusable under any circumstances. So not all of us LaLaLanders are shallow, brain-dead morons. Jeri Merrit is a wannabe who is still acting out her juvenile defiance of her parents. Plus, I wonder how many brain cells she killed in the sixties when she was tripping out to her Blue Cheer records with her water bong. Plenty, it seems.
On a serious note, here is an excerpt from the girl’s testimony to the Polansky grand jury transcript from the LA Times. I wish I could make Jeri read it out loud on CNN, the smug, self-righteous old trout.
Q: What happened then?
A: He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, “No,” you know, “Keep away.” But I was kind of afraid of him because there was no one else there.
She testified that he put his mouth on her vagina.
“I was ready to cry,” she said. “I was kind of — I was going, ‘No. Come on. Stop it.’ But I was afraid.”
She said he then pulled off her panties.
Q: What happened after that?
A: He started to have intercourse with me.
At this point, she testified, Polanski became concerned about the consequences and asked if she was on the pill.
No, she told him.
Polanski had a solution, according to her.
“He goes, ‘Would you want me to go in through your back?’ And I went, ‘No.’ ”
According to her, that didn’t stop Polanski, who began having anal sex with her.
This was when the victim was asked by the prosecutor if she resisted and she said, “Not really,” because “I was afraid of him.” She testified that when the ordeal had ended, Polanski told her, “Oh, don’t tell your mother about this.”
He added: “This is our secret.”
Here is the link: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez30-2009sep30,0,4549479.column?page=1
Okay, I’m done with this now.
OMG. It makes me want to throw up.
Life in prison is too good for this creep.
Yeah, I posted that on the other thread. It has no impact on the pedophile defenders.
Hi myiq2xu,
I made two comments last night re the Polanski affair and later noticed they were not on the blog.
Were the deleted or did I make a mistake when I tried to submit the comments?
just curious
Felis
oh, never mind. I found the comments.
Since I didn’t address anyone in particular I expected the comments to appear at the end of the thread.
Guess things have changed from when I first posted here.
xo
I have never cared for Hollywood.
I watch some tv and some films.
I do not care to hear their political positions.
Most of them (Sean Penn comes to mind) do not
know what they are talking about. They
are entitled to speak their mind freely.
I am not a right winger and will not call
for them to be silenced. When THEY call for
clemency for an admitted child rapist, I will
call them out.
Recall the mysogeny brought against Hillary
from the Hollywood mob during the primary season.
If I had a daughter, I would prefer she
marry Mit Romney than any “elitist” faux liberal
thug from Hollywood.
In fairness, I credit greatly Alan Alda
for not raising his children in Southern California.
Wow, such a long discussion and …did it occur to anyone that I might be an idiot?
COMMENT EDITED BY ADMINISTRATOR
Where? He confessed -or maybe he was lying under oath…
Polanski pled guilty to having sex with a 13 year old. That’s the version that the law is worried about.
WTF?!
This is getting as bad as anything since the Wonktard War
Is it hard to keep track of who is supporting Polanski, however, it seems mostly men. Which women are supporting Polanski except Whoppy?
Lots in Hollywood. And then there are Jerelyn Merritt and Arianna Huffington.
nice one on you tube
boycott whoopi
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVoueGNSAwY&videos=7RpJIyeK91c
All over Sirius Left there were discussions about Polanski and how he should be let go. I almost vomited with some of the callers. What is going on in this country???
It appears that Mr. Polanski’s lawyers may have goaded the LA prosecutors into action. It all started with a documentary about poor little Roman. If this article, http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-30/polanskis-lost-alibi, is true then there is karma. And there is one very cagey old retired prosecutor who set him up.
Does anybody know how Polanski could actually leave Poland – these were the communist days? Did he have dual citizenship (French/Polish)?
He was actually born in France. His Polish parents took him back to Poland as a child. Their timing was not very good and they were rounded up by the Nazis.
Yes that was terrible. They were forced into the Krakow Ghetto. Roman managed to escape in 1943 and stayed with Catholic relatives. Both of his parents went to concentration camps. His father survived, but his mother died there.
Pie Hole – Ok let’s call it even. Perhaps I shouldn’t be responding when only half awake, in general I don’t do that.
You have my congratulations just for not wanting to put up with JM’s shit. Too me she’s not much more than a wanna be starf@#$er. Must be hard for her to be on the outside constantly trying to get in.
To be a member of this community you don’t need to convince me, I’m pretty much on the fringe I think. I’m an emotional responder, not the cool, reasoned one.