It doesn't even matter if the law is rubbish....by the way, it's absolutely not in my estimation.

An adult fking a 13yo, no matter the circumstances is reprehensible, and wrong. Stop, end of story.

He deserves life in prison.

Thats your logic for defending this scumbag?

You are one sick motherfucher!:mad:

Wow just wow. I think Dottore has a man crush on Polanski. That is the only explanation I can come up for why someone would try to convince everyone on this board that sex with a 13 yo is ok as long as the 13 yo looks or acts older. She was in freaking 7th grade!

I vote we let Polanski use Dottore's back door and see how much he likes it.

I live in L.A. and I am constantly in the presence of smoking hot, young women and girls. I tend to like them younger than myself, (I'm 50), and I grew up with a Dad that dated women half his age. (After divorcing my Mom). Most of my Dad's friends trended the same way. I can tell you with absolute certainty that as a middle-aged guy, a lot of 25 y.o. women look like they're barely out of HS to me. Beauties in their early 20s are just too young to hit-on in most all cases, (though certainly not illegal). Teenaged girls look like babies no matter how beautiful or physically mature they are. I've been around the modeling business and you are talking about the prettiest, tallest girls who get made-up to look older and pull it off in ads. They look like babies in person.

There is no way on earth to bang a 13 y.o. and mistake her for being much older and in fact that is not what happened w/ Polanski. Every available piece off evidence in the case, (and there is plenty), confirms that he raped her. What he did would be considered rape if she was 25. SG's grand jury testimony is widely available online and is particularly damning. I do not believe for a minute that she was lying or that she had some vengeful agenda against RP.

I could not admire him more as an artist or less as a person. He deserves whatever comes his way, that law is more than just. :cool:

Totally disgusting, and so is anyone that would support such a scum bag.

If only i was nuanced enough to understand.

Tough crowd.

Speeder: Sorry. I don't see it that way. Her consent (or lack of it) was the proper issue here. Not her age. In every other civilized country such consent would have been a question of fact to be decided by a court of law—not presumed by an absurd and outdated statutory rape law.

And the so-called 'victim' has publicly stated that she "regrets" her grand-jury testimony and the impact this has had on Polanski's life, and has openly pleaded with the DA to let this matter drop. And there is ample evidence that she was coached and manipulated in her original grand jury testimony by an overzealous prosecution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the girl say "No" to Polanski several times? Given his power and strength of will and the fact that she was given part of a Quaalude and some champagne, that sure sounds like rape to me, regardless of what you call the "ass" law. Also, wasn't she paid off? If so, kind of detracts from her credibility with respect to letting it go, does it not?

Morals isn't a liberal trait, you know that...


At 13, she is not mentally mature, how anyone could defend someone who drugged & liquored up & screwed a 13 year old girl is beyond me:eek:
I gues you wouldn't mind a 50 year old guy knocking the bottom out of your 13 year old grand-daughter..



I was just the oppisite, when I was 13, I was banging the 15 year old down the street, and as a soph in high school, I was banging, dating seniors. Never in my teens did I ever want a 13 year old, I always dated a few years older back then...

Again, would you let your 13 year old Grand-daughter alone with Polanksi???

I'm with the good Dottore.

So mate, speaking as two like-minded gentlemen of distinction...do you have any young-ish daughters or nieces? I'm throwing a little 'photography party'. A few drinks, maybe a 'vitamin' or two. Just innocent fun.

Dottore, you are an absolutely disgusting example of the worst humanity has to offer.

I'm glad I have you on ignore.

Agreed, almost never dated anyone much younger than me. In high school I briefly dated a girl that was 2 years younger than me, complete waste of time. Senior year I scored a date with a 27 year old.

In college and after, always older women. One year to 3-4 years older, no big deal. My wife is older than me by 18 days :)

I just can't relate to this line of defense Dot's putting out there. As soon as I heard about this story, I went and read the entire court transcript. Seemed pretty clear-cut from that. Nonetheless, perhaps the testimony was false, maybe RP had been scammed. So then I googled up pictures of SG.

Zero defense. She was obviously a minor. Dot needs to study the images of the girl, then re-read what he did to her.

My guess is that he's got a similar episode in his past, and he is now projecting his own guilt onto the RP case. There's no rational reason someone would otherwise defend this guy.

Agree and here is a pic of the 7th grader that Polanski RAPED:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1264516796.jpg

Simply cannot understand how someone can defend this action.

Yeah, no way you can defend it with "she looked older" or "she wanted it". The only way that would seem ok is if you had no/warped morals. Based on who he was and when it was, I suspect it was easy for him to think it was OK (hollywood, sex and drugs everywhere), but that doesn't make it right.

My thinking exactly, which i alluded to in an earlier post.

His constant, unflinching, never wavering support for Polanski in thread after thread makes me think that Dottore is either Polanski's mother, or he has a similar episode in his past.

Your a brave man Dottore. There are people who would want to throw YOU in jail, just for saying the things you've said.

I don't know much about the Polansky, but I don't believe anyone should be allowed to flout our legal system and get away with it. Being rich and connected should not mean you aren't subject to our laws. If the system is screwed up it needs to be changed, not sidestepped.

As for you making a distinction between rape and sex with underage children I agree. Having sex with children or underage teens should be it's own crime, separate and distinct from rape of an adult. The situations are too different for them to be considered the same crime.

Having sex with someone under 14 is a felony all of it's own flavor. Doesn't matter if it's consentual or not. It's irrelevant.

if you were polanski's defense attorney, he'd be headed for the chair.


a 13 year old cannot "consent" to anything. i could drive a few hours south and find some child who'd have sex with me. her mother would even take a check. their actions are irrelevant. i would have committed a crime.

also, having to first DRUG her, and then sodomizing her while she was CRYING sort of argue against the whole consent thing. having girls cry seems like a real turn off to me. maybe it works for him. it's 30 years later. and the woman want's to move on. the several hundred thousand dollars paid to her from the polanski camp helps. but again. that is irrelevant. roman has an established history of doing this to underage girls. in his autobiography he brags about ****ing natassia kinsky when she was 14 or 15. this is what you call a pattern.

p.s.


roman's new movie is called the ghost writer. it is supposedly an attack on blair/bush and the war in iraq.


thought experiment. would you rahter be a prisoner at abu ghraib, or a child in polanski's hot tub?

Fixed!

This discussion reminds me of the NAMBLA sickos who want to: "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships." In other words, let dirty old men have their way with "consenting" children. Children are very easy to manipulate, and pedophiles know this. It is easy to encourage a child to "consent" and if that doesn't work there's always date-rape drugs, right? Polanski is no different than any other neighborhood pedophile, except that he's very wealthy and famous and some would like to see him avoid his crimes because of this.

Sorry. Her consent was irrelevant - she was 13. The law, and I believe it is a reasonable one, says minors cannot consent to having sex. While I disagree with calling "consensual" sex with minors rape, I do contend that many, if not most, of them do not have the capacity to make such an adult decision. Might some of them? I don't know. Neither do you nor Roman Polanski. It is entirely unreasonable to expect a horny guy to make an informed, honest and reasonable determination of whether the 13 or 16 year old that he's hot to bone is capable of consenting to have sex. If he's really serious about this person he'll consent to having a psychological evaluation of both himself and the child and abide by the opinions of the experts. Somehow I don't see that happening a lot. I think the law is right to conservatively say keep your hands off or else.

Certain liberals here have already given me that title for pointing out the truth & facts..

Someone needs to lube up a stick with ICE/HOT and shub it up RP's bung hole a few times!!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/65YWK0jEz9Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0 x54abd6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/65YWK0jEz9Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0 x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Yes it is. We disagree with flat-earth conservatives on some points, but we share the moral principles of most Americans.

Dottore, you have not made even a single persuasive point.

1. The law is stupid, which is not only irrelevant but untrue.

2. She was sexually mature and consented to it, which she obviously did not, or he would not have to drug her and she would not have been crying and begging him to stop. Sexually mature, is that the old enough to bleed, old enough to breed axiom?

3. He had a deal with the judge and was afraid it would not be honored, so he is a psychic pedophile, that sort of stretches credulity, and he could have just said, "Forget it, I withdraw my plea, lets go to trial."

4. He has a history as a ladies man. He loves women, he does not hate them. Man that is ridiculous, he has a history of nailing little girls, that makes him a pedophile, not a ladies man. John Wayne Gacy loved little boys, he was just a misunderstood clown, n'est pas? The victim wants to let it go and get on with her life? Of course she does, she was raped as a child, and paid off by the perpetrator.

5.The US Govt is corrupt, so are the Swiss, so the rearrest is bogus. Seriously dude, that is an argument, are you freakin' kidding me?

6. The judge was corrupt, the law is stupid, the DA was sketchy etc, etc

One question for you Dot.

If you had a 13 year old child, who was drugged and raped, what would you do?

Leaving aside you think the law is stupid, or the rapist in question is willing to give you a sack of cash to let it go, or a good dancer, or an artistic genius, or his parents died in a concentration camp, or any of the other irrelevant nonsense you dredge up whenever we talk about this POS degenerate, recidivist pedophile who has certainly nailed numerous children.

You have a 13 year old daughter and she is raped. That is really the only pertinent fact, what do you do?

Thank you for the first rational response here.

I don't think her consent (or lack of it) is irrelevant when the charge is rape. On the contrary it is extremely relevant for the person charged with the offense.

And bear in mind Polanski did plead guilty to sex with a minor. And had a plea deal. And spent time in prison. And then a corrupt judge decided to reneg on the deal for his own aggrandizement because he sensed a media spectacle. That's when things went downhill, and Polanski took the only rational option open to him and fled the country. I mean you'd have to be a very highly principled idiot to subject yourself to a complete kangaroo court when there is so much at stake.

In any case, I won't convince the good sanctimonious burghers of PPOT of any of this. Their minds are made up.

So I'm just going to pour myself a few fingers of single-malt, throw a log on the fire and re-read Lolita.

It doesn't matter what you think. In the eyes of that law, it is irrelevant. A 13yo cannot legally give consent. Stop, end of story.

No matter how correct you believe yourself to be or how much you try to spin it dotty, it does not make you any less wrong.

Ironic thing is Polanski clearly knew what he did was wrong and just did not care. You just don't care that it was wrong.

If you would honestly say the same thing about your own 13 year old child, I hope nobody was every stupid enough to leave you alone with any children.

This is a subject that elicits a lot of emotional responses and not much rational thought, hence the hysteria, name calling and venomous rhetoric. Too bad, the subject deserves a rational discussion.

He didn't spend much time in jail and he's no better than the rest of us who are subjected to our flawed court system but don't have the resources to flee. I think the rational, legal, and moral course would have been to stay and fight the courts like the rest of would have had to.

Judging from his previous comments on this thread, my guess is that he would see if he could join in and bugger her himself after the rapist was finished.

He seems to have absolutely NO morals when it comes to this.

Yes, I believe you are right. The only thing that could put an end to the burghers hamming it up here is for Roman to marry the poor girl.

Thanks again for focusing on the issue.

He spent 90 days in jail, as agreed with the DA in his lesser plea for "sex with a minor". That was the deal. That was what he pleaded guilty to.

What I disagree with is your point that fleeing when he saw he was going to be railroaded by a corrupt court was somehow wrong. Surely morality does not come into this decision. What is "rational, legal and moral" about subjecting yourself to an obvious travesty of justice?

The only real question here is whether his decision to flee was rational under the circumstances. With everything we now know about the judge and his intentions, I'm of the view that Polanski's choice was entirely rational.

Imagine if you were thrown into jail in Turkey, knew you were facing a corrupt court and possibly a long and entirely disproportionate sentence? Would you not flee the jurisdiction if you had the opportunity? I know I damn well would.

This is rather rich coming from PPOT's self-proclaimed king of the arse-bandits.

I've met Joe, and i'm pretty sure Joe wouldn't bonk a 13yo.

That would make Roman a bigamist, and that would upset the sanctimonious wankers on this board even more.

Damn, I always forget:

Bigamy - not OK, sodomy - OK

They're trying more and more adolescents as adults nowadays. Perhaps they should convict the girl (now woman) for contributing to the delinquency of a foreigner and call it a wash?

Dari proving once again that he is, in fact, stupid.

actually i think he was being sarcastic.


if so, it's the first clever thing he's said in.... in....? maybe it's the first clever thing he's ever said.

He would not have wanted to have a trial at the time on that charge or issue. Unless her GJ testimony was made of whole cloth, he drugged and raped her. You do realise that if a woman, (or girl, or guy if you swing that way), says "no" and you force yourself on them sexually, it's rape. Right? I'm talking legally here, so skip the obfuscation that I'm just a "sanctimonious burgher" who does not benefit from your more sophisticated worldview.

All issues of criminal law have some moral or value judgement attached to them or why else would we as a society choose to proscribe them? Why not just allow murder, rape or swindling old people out of their life savings. Bunch of sanctimonious burghers... :rolleyes:

He could have withdrawn his plea and had a trial if they were not willing to make the deal that had been discussed. Not sure how familiar you are with the legal system in the U.S. but he and his attorney did not have any legally binding agreement for a certain disposition to the case, only a suggestion from prosecutors as to a particular sentence if he pled guilty to a certain charge.

I think that even his close friends know that he's a sick fk and that he forced himself on that little girl, (which is rape in this country), they just do not want to see him rot in prison. He has led an extremely privileged life in the years since 1977 and if there is any injustice in this case, it was his flight.

All of your claims of "kangaroo courts" and corrupt legal systems are a waste of breath, he was entitled to a trial. he probably would have benefited from the young victim's unwillingness to relive that day on the witness stand and been sprung-free.

I agree with Speeder 100%.

My apologies Denis, I don't consider you one of the sanctimonious arseholes on this board. But having been called every name under the sun for having a different opinion from the others here, it's perhaps possible to understand my response.

But what I quote from your comments above goes to the point: You presume he drugged and raped her. Everybody on this board presumes he drugged and raped her.

This is however a question of fact that should have been tried—but it couldn't be because it was already presumed in the charge of statutory rape.

All we have is the girls GJ testimony which has been called into question by numerous commentators, and which she (the alleged victim) has stated she now regrets.

When faced with a kangaroo court, and trial by the media—why should Polanski have taken a chance and stayed around only to be locked up for God knows how long for something that even the alleged victim claims was really not a large moral transgression in the great scheme of things.

There was a complete disconnect between the crime and the punishment that was about to be meted out, and that disconnect was down to the media and a deeply flawed judicial system.

Sorry, but if my version of these events is right—and certainly from all the reading I have done on this, and the conversations I have had, it seems probable to me that my version is right—then I believe the fact that Polanski fled the country at that time was a completely reasonable thing for him to do, and morally neutral. He had served the time he was told he had to serve.

Also, although I'm not very well versed in California criminal procedure, I believe the plea bargain Polanski made was blessed by the judge in open court—which should have made it binding. Or if it wasn't binding, this was never properly explained to Polanski (see the recent documentary), with the result that he copped plea to the lesser charge without understanding that the whole thing could be set aside by the judge—who most clearly was thoroughly corrupt.

Anyway, this horse is probably well and truly dead, and maybe we should agree to disagree.