polanski

[Purkake]

This just in: celebrities are stupid and tend to get behind stupid causes for some reason.

 

Exhibit A: Jenny McCarthy.

[Gromnir]

am doubting that polanski's fellow inmates woulda' had as much difficulty with the morality question as does many of you. polanski's trial got good amount o' coverage, and am confident that inmates would be aware of the facts o' the case. am wondering what luck polanski would have debating with some tatooed norteno or skinhead... defend self by pointing to the practices o' socialy progressive japanese businessmen on holiday in thailand? good luck.

 

is our understanding that judge were gonna give polanski 48 days on top of time already served. 48 days ain't much. at the same time, am betting that those woulda' been 48 very long days.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited October 1, 2009 by Gromnir

[Asol]

This just in: celebrities are stupid and tend to get behind stupid causes for some reason.

 

Like giving a **** about this guy doing time or not.

 

Exhibit A: Jenny McCarthy.

 

http://www.generationrescue.org/

[Purkake]

Exhibit A: Jenny McCarthy.

 

http://www.generationrescue.org/

 

Yes, she's an anti-vaccionist, what's your point?

[Gorgon]

So I read a little of the headlines just for kicks.

 

 

"I can't believe that Hollywood has separated itself so completely from American morality," said Paul Petersen, a former child actor and president of A Minor Consideration, which advocates on behalf of young performers ". This was in response to the American celebrity rally around Polanski.

 

What the hell is 'American morality'. It sounds scary if you ask me. One can only hope it's at least similar to.... well morality.

 

"Supporters make note of his age, the years that have passed, his talent and the victim's own assertion that pursuing the case opens fresh wounds for her as reasons the director should be left alone."

 

Can someone explain to me what in blazes his talent has to do with anything. What is the suggestion here, that people with no talent should be punished and talented people go free. Also why aren't these supporters properly quoted.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Gorgon

[Asol]

Exhibit A: Jenny McCarthy.

 

http://www.generationrescue.org/

 

Yes, she's an anti-vaccionist, what's your point?

 

Was taking a guess at your point. Sifting more polanski stories than I intended already and the lists I've seen don't have Jenny McCarthy as a signatory, but do have others one might have higher expectations on.

From your response I have to assume I missed a sound byte or blip somewhere but why would it be more relevant than someone like Tilda Swinton or other higher profile. The autism stuff is pretty much all Jenny McCarthy is known for these days.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Asol

[Purkake]

It was just to illustrate my point that celebrities tend to get behind stupid causes and use all their influence to promote them, when they have no business doing that and one might argue even a moral responsibility to make sure that they aren't using their influence to promote something harmful(like Jenny).

[Gfted1]

Er, her son is autistic.

[Purkake]

And her anti-vaccination campaign has cost quite a few lives already. Having an autistic son is not an excuse for spewing bull**** and endangering other people's lives.

[Gromnir]

"What the hell is 'American morality'. It sounds scary if you ask me. One can only hope it's at least similar to.... well morality."

 

has "American" modify any word and many of you would be freighted and/or disgusted by the result.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorgon]

anti-vaccionist

 

What.. not even Google knows.

[Gorgon]

Against vaccination ?

[Purkake]

anti-vaccionist

 

What.. not even Google knows.

 

It's a hard word to make other words out of. Basically they don't vaccinate their kids, because they believe(contrary to actual evidence) that they cause autism along with some other bad stuff.

 

Look here for more info.

[Gorgon]

Ahh, Crackpots.

[Purkake]

Yeah, those.

[Pop]

is our understanding that judge were gonna give polanski 48 days on top of time already served. 48 days ain't much. at the same time, am betting that those woulda' been 48 very long days.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Basically my understanding of the case is that Polanski had a number of different charges leveled against him, including forcible rape. I'm not sure if they had date-rape laws back then but that is, by all accounts, what it was. The victim desired for the case not to go to trial primarily because the defense was likely to bring her entire sexual history to light and she would've been ****-shamed and Polanski might have gone free on that alone. If the crime was committed today, it's hard to say for certain that it wouldn't have played out the same way.

 

So the prosecution worked out a deal with the defense. Polanski attended psychiatric counseling for a period of 42 days and was set to be released after that, but when the deal was sent to the judge of the case it became apparent that he would not sign off on it. This is often held up as justification for Polanski to flee the country (and the major plot point of the highly skewed Wanted and Desired doc) but in actuality, the court is not bound by any agreements between the defense and the prosecutors, and judges have the right to reject plea deals if they feel they don't serve the interests of justice (for example, I believe a federal judge in New York rejected a proposed deal between the SEC and one of the failing banks, as he considered the penalty attached to be too light)

 

So, the play by play: the defense and the prosecution fashion a deal. Polanski pleads guilty to the lesser charge of sex with a minor and is informed that the court is not under obligation to accept the deal. He's on record as saying he understands this. However, when it becomes apparent that the deal will probably be rejected and the case will go to trial, he flees the country. It's often said that the judge was going to reject the deal and send Polanski directly to prison, but this too is a false claim. The judge could either accept the deal or turn it down and send the case to trial, in which case Polanski was free to rescind his guilty plea and fight for his freedom in a court of law. But instead he became a fugitive. The statute of limitations does not apply in this case because it only applies to cases that have not yet been deliberated upon. By pleading guilty and then running, the clock was thrown out on his case. He's guilty in the eyes of the law and he's been awaiting sentencing for over 30 years. His flight is sure to add even more time onto his sentence.

 

There are additional allegations in light of the Wanted and Desired documentary that there was improper communication between the prosecution and the judge. The prosecutor claimed in the documentary that this was the case. However in the last few days he said he lied to the filmmakers. This doesn't mean impropriety didn't take place originally, but it destroys his credibility as a witness on Polanski's behalf, and the original judge is dead, so there's not much way of knowing. Besides, if there was indeed impropriety, the appellate courts would have heard Polanski's case and a mistrial might have been declared and the judge removed from the case. Since Polanski was not willing to stand before the court his demands went unheard. Repeatedly his charges have been met with "come back to the US and we'll hear your case". Ironically enough, the most recent attempts to get the case dismissed were probably the catalyst for his arrest. His lawyers argued that the US had not made any good-faith efforts to apprehend Polanski and thus the case should be thrown out. This lit a fire under the ass of the prosecutor's office and voila, Polanski's now waiting to be extradited.

 

Any way you slice it, there's not much reason why Polanski shouldn't be going to jail now. Even leaving aside the rape allegations (and I wouldn't, Polanski does not deny the details of the case and merely believes that he committed no wrongdoing at all, and that the drunk, sedated 13 year old was hot to trot) there's the fact that he held the law in contempt for so long, and that's bound to bring the hammer down by some measure. Being as rich, famous, beloved and white as he is I don't expect the sentence to be that harsh (he just brought on a close personal friend of the US Attorney General to the defense)

Edited October 1, 2009 by Pop

[Pop]

Also I don't know if it's been said (just skimming over the thread) but the whole argument over a reasonable age of consent is kind of pointless in this case because the victim expressed a desire to leave and said no repeatedly, which Polanski answered with more and different varieties of sex. You can read the Grand Jury testimony here, and it goes on for a few pages. Not for the faint of heart.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Pop

[Gromnir]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-po...0,1100452.story

 

am not a fan of la times, but they did an okie dokie job.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Humodour]

Quick quiz: does anyone here with experience of trying to help victims of child abuse feel the age of consent is too high? Is it just me who feel you chaps are being rather blase?

 

Child abuse is child abuse. Changing the age of consent won't change that.

 

If the victim doesn't give consent, or was coerced, that's extremely illegal under the law, regardless of the age.

[Gromnir]

Quick quiz: does anyone here with experience of trying to help victims of child abuse feel the age of consent is too high? Is it just me who feel you chaps are being rather blase?

 

Child abuse is child abuse. Changing the age of consent won't change that.

 

If the victim doesn't give consent, or was coerced, that's extremely illegal under the law, regardless of the age.

 

...

 

am thinking that you is misreading or missing point. "age of consent". consent cannot be given by persons younger than age of consent. if you have sex with somebody who did not give consent...

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hiro Protagonist]

Also I don't know if it's been said (just skimming over the thread) but the whole argument over a reasonable age of consent is kind of pointless in this case because the victim expressed a desire to leave and said no repeatedly, which Polanski answered with more and different varieties of sex. You can read the Grand Jury testimony here, and it goes on for a few pages. Not for the faint of heart.

 

Disturbing stuff. Even more disturbing is she admitted she had sex twice before being raped by Polanski. That's three times she's been raped. Whether consensual or not, it's still rape. What happened to the other person(s) that had sex with her. Why the outcry over Polanski and not the one(s) before Polanski?

[~Di]

Pop: It wasn't "date rape." They weren't on a date. Polanski told the girl and her mother that he wanted to do a private photo shoot of her.

 

Yes, I have huge issues with the mother giving her approval for her 13 year old daughter to have a private photo shoot with a 44 year old man... but the fact remains that it was never a "date".

[Gromnir]

Even more disturbing is she admitted she had sex twice before being raped by Polanski. That's three times she's been raped. Whether consensual or not, it's still rape. What happened to the other person(s) that had sex with her. Why the outcry over Polanski and not the one(s) before Polanski?

 

you serious? how many kids has played doctor in basement with a neighbor? is disturbing, but More disturbing than being drugged and forced to have sex with an adult? you is kidding. you Must be kidding.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hiro Protagonist]

you serious? how many kids has played doctor in basement with a neighbor? is disturbing, but More disturbing than being drugged and forced to have sex with an adult? you is kidding. you Must be kidding.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

WTF??? Are you serious? You're suggesting 'playing doctor in basement with a neighbour' is the same as a 13 year old girl having consensual sex with another person? WTF are you on? How many children playing doctor and nurse are having full out sex. You're suggesting playing doctor and sex are the same. And what sort of distorted view do you have? You seriously need to get a reality check.

 

And you don't even though who she had sex with before Polanski. Even if it was consencual, What if it was an adult? That's rape. You're dismissing her previous sexual encounters as 'playing doctor with a neighbour'. So what if it was a neighbour - an adult neighbour! It seems the Prosecutors are only focusing on one rapist when there's more than one rapist at hand.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Hiro Protagonist

[Gromnir]

Pop: It wasn't "date rape." They weren't on a date. Polanski told the girl and her mother that he wanted to do a private photo shoot of her.

 

Yes, I have huge issues with the mother giving her approval for her 13 year old daughter to have a private photo shoot with a 44 year old man... but the fact remains that it was never a "date".

 

mom were foolish. 'course if setting were dirt water missouri and we were talking 'bout private math lessons or private piano lessons, most parents probable wouldn't be over concerned. hollywood "photographer" wants to take photos o' your 13 year old girl? yeah, some warning bell shoulda' gone off in mom's head.

 

woulda' been another reason why victim's family didn't want trial at the time... mom/daughter/family woulda' been raked over coals til you weren't certain who were on trial no more. before rape shield, the victim's prior sexual experience were fair game. girl and family woulda' been violated in court and in press over and over again.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

to hiro:

 

1) you don't know if the prior sexual encounters were with adult any more than Gromnir... but sure seems more likely that it weren't with an adult. you ask why the sex with roman gets pub and previous encounters didn't. obvious answer: the victim's prior sexual encounters were with similar aged teens. but you think is More disturbing that she had sex 2 times previous to polanski? wacky. an adult drugs a 13 year old girl and then forces himself on her, but you find mere fact that she had already had sex 2x More disturbing?

 

2) am thinking you is a bit naive. you not think that some kids experiment with sex at very young age. hell, Gromnir grew up in freakin south & north dakota and we knew kids who had experimented with sex by age 13. considering how few people Gromnir knew, that is saying something too. nearest neighbor for Gromnir were over a mile away. Gromnir never suggested that all such experiments is involving intercourse, but you is ridiculous obtuse if you think it not happen... and if you think that such occurrences is extreme rare then you is nuts.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Gromnir