Nice ab hominem attack. You are not giving a very good image of Christians here, are you? Is that what you were taught in Church? And for the record, I am a Christian too. Maybe just not an angry radical one. God bless you.

The guy drugged a 13 year old girl, then had sex with her.... After years went by with him on the run, he paid her off. How can that be OK.. If he did that to your 13 year old, how much would it cost to by the answers you have given??? How much is the youth of your 13 year old worth to you????

I hope he gets his due in the US Courts. Maybe he should get his original plea bargain, even though it seemed unjust, it was offered to him. Perhaps he'll get some time for jumping bail. Good to see some closure, even though it's 30 years late.

Where is the father in this? If someone drugged and raped my little girl. I would want them walking around free (in France where you can't carry a gun around to protect yourself) so I could get to them, they would not have lived another 32 years.
She was 13, he drugged her...How can anyone defend him and not want him to pay for his crime?
It's unbelievable what some people think and post on here....

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”


roman polanski 1979



Roman Polanski: ‘Everyone else fancies little girls too’ - Telegraph Blogs

Aurel and others, I'd be embarrassed to even try and defend Polanski. Why on earth would you?

1. Even if the judge and DA were colluding on his guilty plea and sentence, all he had to do was say he withdrew his guilty plea and wanted a trial. Instead he fled to France, yeah France, nuf said.

2. So he drugs and rapes and sodomized a 13 y/o who had sex before and had done drugs and booze before, I guess that is sort of like justifying going to Thailand for the little boys and girls cause they've done it before?

3. It was over 30 years ago, so if you can evade authorities for RAPING a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL for 30 years, then it's OK.

4. She didn't want to pursue it. She has nothing to do with it now. NOTHING. No testimony NOTHING.

5. I guess that you'd be OK with, and feel the same way when you take YOUR troubled (has had drug and alcohol problems( THIRTEEN YEAR OLD DAUGHTER in for a film or photo shoot and the next Roman Polanski drugs your daughter and effs her up the A$$.

I am not excusing or defending Roman Polanski, all I am saying is that you guys should let it go. Why should I be embarrassed of that opinion, when the prime minister of Poland, Sarkozy, Kouchner and many other high ranking political figures both in France and Poland are saying the same?

If you like to take personal examples (and I have a 3 yo daughter), how would you feel if your wife had thousands of people talking all over the internet about how she was ass raped thirty years ago, reading all the details of her deposition? Don`t you think she is being raped a thousand more times now? I know it is not about her anymore, but read what she has to say about this last attempt at "justice" anyway:

"Geimer was particularly upset when prosecutors filed a fresh version of the entire 1977 grand jury transcript, replete with all the lurid details. "True as they may be, the continued publication of those details cause harm to me," she wrote in January. "I have become a victim of the actions of the district attorney.""

Victim: Courts did more harm than Polanski - CNN.com

Something is wrong when the justice system does more harm to the victim than the crime itself. Just so you guys can feel warm and cozy that your druggie little girls can go do naked photo shots at 13 without risking to be raped. I simply hope my daughter will not do drugs and will use her brain rather than her body to start a career.

You should be embarrassed if you're so ignorant as to think those people's opinions mean anything to most Americans or to our legal system. Ditto for Woody Allen (oh the irony), Debra Winger and Martin Scorcese.

I have to admit I am pretty baffled here- a guy raped a 13 year old, admitted to raping a 13 year old, plead guilty to raping a 13 year old, and then ran away before he could be sentenced. Those are all facts that nobody seems to dispute.

This is truly the end. Focking Whoopi Goldberg "It wasn't rape rape...". Wow. I don't get it. I definitely don't get it.

The reason this is still news 30 years later is because of the actions of ROMAN POLANSKI, not the court. The Blame for the continuing story is that Roman has not submitted to the Justice system and has been evading justice for 30 years.

The very good point was made that if he was a truck driver, the world would be looking to hang him. We cant have two justice systems, one for notables and one for nobodies..

The day the (now) women wrote about this incident and publicly forgave him - he should have got on a plane, come back to the U.S. and faced the music. At that point he would have gotten a suspended sentence, or otherwise not long in jail.

As for the U.S. justice system - Polanski's main defense now is that the original judge reneged on a deal and that is why he fled. It is a nice made-for-the-media defense, but might get him in big trouble at his next sentencing.

Lots of folks' parents died in concentration camps and it doesn't make them immune from the law in any country. A good family friend who was killed in the WTC has a ne'er-do-well son who is never not in trouble with the law, but always plays the "dad died on 9/11" card and never gets any kind punishment. It's unreal the stuff this kid has gotten away with once he gets to court.

Not trying to defend Polanski, but my most recent statutory rape client was a nobody college student and it was plea bargained down to a contributing to delinquency charge (misdemeanor) and got 1 yr probation, a $1000 fine and did not have to register as a sex offe3nder for the rest of his life, so I don't buy his celebrity as the sole reason he was able to cut a deal.

Not trying to blame the victim but in my client's case as well as the Polanski case there were mitigating factors and a family that did not want to put the victim on the witness stand and parents who did not see where putting a person in jail would serve any real purpose. And in my case the judge was willing to accept the recommendations of the prosecutor, psychologists, investigators, and victim's family and not renege on a plea deal for his own ambition. While Polanski's actions were abhorrent and he deserved punishment, its not as if he picked an innocent child of chaste character up at a playground.

See the attached letter ffrom the victim's lawyer given to the judge at the hearing where Polanski enter his plea BEFORE the got wind the judge was not going to accept the plea. Keep in mind Polanski would not have pled guilty had the plea bargain not been struck. So it has been the vicytim's and her parents' desire to not incarcerate Polanski long before now.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1254238812.gif
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1254238824.gif
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1254238833.gif

Of course Polanski really complicated his legal troubles by fleeing the country. IMHO that may be more serious from a legal perspective than his sex act.

Or, polanski could have avaoided this entire mess had he NOT KNOWINGLY DRUGGED AND SODOMIZED A 13 YEAR OLD--he even admitted at trial that he knew she ws 13 prior to commiting the act.

Screw him and all the hollywood jerks that have signed the petition to release him.

If I were in charge of it all, I'd be adding 10 days in the joint for Polanski for every Hollywood idiot who signed a petition for him. What a bunch of self-important morons.

Maybe he should be sentenced to live out the remainder of his life in a tent, out in the woods somewhere.

Randy

Looks like he's pretty well "Lawyered Up"

BTW nobody mentioned that frikkin' Woody Allen signed a petition supporting him...

Jim, your client probably wasn't over 3 times the age of the "victim". I don't know if the sex was "consenual" or not. By law, it can't be. The problem here is not even the original crime, it is an evasion of justice for over 30 years. It isn't like someone just dug this up, and no one ever knew. We've all known about this for 30+ years. And the reason the story continues is that Roman refuses to face justice.

He could have solved this years ago, by sending lawyer to cut a deal, then coming back for sentancing. Did he? No. If they drop/reduce the original charges, isn't my concern. But he should be charged and given the maximum sentance for evasion.

Uh, looks like you took care of that. I could care less what another perv and his ilk think. It's "soap on a rope time".