[Dottore]

It's remarkable to me how many of you see this as a black and white issue, when in fact it is anything but.

1. First, the law is often an ass—but nowhere more so than in the case of statutory rape legislation. The US is one of the few remaining countries with such laws, because virtually all of the rest of the world agrees that women reach sexual maturity at different ages—not all at an age (16) predetermined by legislators. Ponder for a moment the idiocy of a law that states a girl below the age of 16 is deemed unable to consent to sex, and that therefore every act of sex she engages in must be without her consent, and therefore rape. In an age when teenagers are maturing earlier and earlier, it is truly absurd for the law to deem each sexual act in which they engage a case of "rape".

I don't think I'm the only one on this board who has met girls younger than 16 who were fully mature and capable of not just consenting to sex, but actually actively seducing their opposite number.

2. Second, having said all of that, there is no one who was seriously close to this affair who would deny that the so-called "victim" was fully sexually mature at the time, had engaged in sex previously, and was fully capable of consenting to the sex she had. As such, the statutory rape charge made no sense in her case. The law was simply an ass. Whether or not she consented to sex with Polanski, should have been a question of fact—which unfortunately it never was (and couldn't be) because of your statutory rape laws.

3. Polanksi had a deal with the DA, that he would spend 90 days in prison (which he did) and that any sentencing would take those 90 days into account and that he would do no further time. This was a deal. Unfortunately Polanski drew a judge who was a well-known a vain and corrupt "star-ficker". (He's now dead.) Prior to his court date, Polanski's lawyers got wind of the fact that this judge intended to "reneg" on the deal, and "throw the book" at Polanski because he wanted to make an example of him for reasons that are as perverse as they are well documented.

Under the circumstances Polanski decided to flee the country. This of course raises the question of whether it was reasonable to flee under these circumstances, or whether he should have "faced the music".

From Polanski's perspective, (a) the statutory rape law was was absurd; (b) the girl was sexually mature and was foisted on Polanski by her mother—so at the very least whether or not this was rape should have been a question of fact—which it never was; (c) he drew a corrupt judge who would ignore the plea bargain, and try to make an example of Polanski JUST BECAUSE he craved the media attention.

You picture yourself in a foreign country before a Kangaroo Court under these circumstances, and maybe you would agree that fleeing was Polanski's best option.

4. Polanski has always been a ladies man. But as all of his old flames are quick to point out, he is very much a "lover or women"—not a hater. Always has been. He is not someone who is in any way inclined to be abusive even in the slightest—and completely leaving aside what might have transpired between him and the so-called victim that day—the simple fact is she has long ago let the matter drop, and has begged the DA to let it drop. There is no victim here, and there is much available evidence about the extent to which her testimony early on was coerced, cajoled and manipulated.

5. I won't even begin to comment on the collusion between the US law enforcement officials and the IRS—who are pushing the Swiss on the subject of banking secrecy, and the sorry manner in which this recent re-arrest came about. Much has been written on this.

6. From where I sit (and I do know Polanski—not well, but well enough to have carefully listened to his side of this story, and the story of his wife of almost 25 years)—and looked at in the round— this continuing campaign against Polanski from the LA DA's office is a complete travesty of justice. (The law at issue was bad. The facts very dodgy. There is no victim. The judge was corrupt and willing to ignore the plea deal. etc)

Of course the DA has a hard-on and wants to make a career—and nothing makes a better story (and a career faster) than one beginning with the words "child rape"—particularly one in which the players are as notorious as this. Ponder for a moment though on the millions LA has spent on this over the years, then ask yourself if there might not have been better uses for these funds. Put yourself in Polanski's shoes, and ask yourself whether fleeing the country when he did wasn't the best thing he could have done.

But most importantly try to balance the human elements of this story with the legal ones—and this whole thing quickly reduces to a bad farce.

I know there are a lot of haters out there, and that you all have your minds made up about Polanksi. There are no shades of grey—just black and white. My guess is most of you have done things in your lives at some point that have caused more hurt, and were on some larger scale of values more clearly morally wrong than what transpired that day in LA so many years ago. I know I have. And I'm not proud of that.

It's a rainy day overlooking the surf in Carmel, and I have gone on at greater length than I ordinarily would. I don't expect I'll change many of your minds with this. But I feel I almost owe it to Polanski to try to counter some of the uninformed views on this little forum.