• Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Child rapist freed by Switzerland


    by Rumbold
    13th July, 2010 at 10:02 pm    

    After a concerted campaign by rape apologists, Roman Polanski has been freed by a Swiss court, thus freeing him from possible extradition to America, which he had fled after raping a child decades earlier. The fact that people still defend him and praise him is disgusting, and chilling when one considers that only his fame and talent (rather than natural justice) allowed him to escape a crime for which he was convicted. Whether his films are any good is irrelevant. He drugged and raped a child, and fled before he could serve his sentence.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Sex equality






    74 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. sunny hundal

      Blog post:: Child rapist freed by Switzerland http://bit.ly/9Yl7LQ


    2. Anne Marte

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: Child rapist freed by Switzerland http://bit.ly/9Yl7LQ


    3. rahooligan

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: Child rapist freed by Switzerland http://bit.ly/9Yl7LQ


    4. James Hepplestone

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: Child rapist freed by Switzerland http://bit.ly/9Yl7LQ


    5. Amir Rashid

      Pickled Politics » Child rapist freed by Switzerland http://goo.gl/DeUc over there, minarets are illegal but child rapists are very welcome


    6. RaisingKids

      Pickled Politics » Child rapist freed by Switzerland: After a concerted campaign by rape apologists, Roman Polansk… http://bit.ly/a63fqH


    7. How can make root beer at home? Good root beer?

      [...] Pickled Politics » Child rapist freed by Switzerland [...]




    1. Old Holborn — on 13th July, 2010 at 10:08 pm  

      “he had fled after raping a child decades earlier”

      “fled before he could serve his sentence.”

      *cough*

    2. Nicki — on 13th July, 2010 at 10:19 pm  

      Old Holborn -

      Why does how long ago it happened matter?

      Does it make these prosecutions invalid - all of rapes over ten years ago?

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1715766.stm
      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/serial-rapist-jailed-for-1981-attack-1996899.html
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/20/taxi-rapes-case-police-failures

      How about John Worboys, the taxi rapist who has been raping women, including girls of under 16 years old, for years?

      This Polanski drugged, raped and anally raped a child. Regardless of anything else, shouldn’t he be punished? He clearly hasn’t been - he’s been living a wonderful life in Paris.

      Unfortunately and terribly, there are many women who cannot face their attackers or who do not want to take their attacker to court, mostly because most rapists are previously known to their victim. This does not, however, mean that rapists should not be prosecuted and serve proper sentences as punishment.

    3. Don — on 13th July, 2010 at 10:55 pm  

      *cough*

      What the fuck does *cough* mean in this context?

    4. Kismet Hardy — on 13th July, 2010 at 11:07 pm  

      Made fucking piss shit dull movies anyway. Pretentious little gimp

    5. persephone — on 13th July, 2010 at 11:32 pm  

      rape culture at the most high profile level

    6. Sunny — on 14th July, 2010 at 1:42 am  

      Didn’t Salman Rushdie sign the letter for him to be freed?

      The same Salman Rushdie who later accused Amnesty of being “morally bankrupt”.

    7. douglas clark — on 14th July, 2010 at 1:48 am  

      Old Holborn,

      Yes, what was the cough about? IIRC you think the USA is the land of the free and the home of the brave, is that right?

      They seem to have more interest in bringing Gary McKinnon to ‘justice’, rather than an alleged child rapist.

      What are your morals, exactly? Or do you have any?

      cough

    8. Kulvinder — on 14th July, 2010 at 2:07 am  

      The fact that people still defend him and praise him is disgusting, and chilling when one considers that only his fame and talent (rather than natural justice) allowed him to escape a crime for which he was convicted.

      I’m curious about the context of people ‘defending him’ (cab rank rule?); if you mean in a wider social context, id argue more people have been nuanced in their appraisal of the situation than outright opposing his extradition (though both positions are admittedly very much the minority).

      A plea-bargain was arranged - by the victim’s own lawyer - which everyone concerned apparently agreed to. The judge then went back on that and polanski ran away. He may be a rapist who hasn’t been punished to the extent many would like, but his actions aren’t exactly unfathomable. Disreputable certainly, but not unfathomable. He didn’t run because he was rich and famous but because he didn’t have any confidence in the Californian judicial system.

      In the decades since the DAs involved could have arranged to have him prosecuted under french law.

      Far from ‘defending’ his crime its surely pertinent to point out ‘natural justice’ depends on a just and fair judicial system? Just because someone supports the notion that a murderer may not have had a fair trial, or sentencing hearing, doesn’t mean you ‘support’ his crime.

      Its a strange world where more people support the idea that Polanski is guilty and due process be damned; than Polanski is guilty but that doesn’t mean its acceptable to disregard protocol.

      As for praising him; irrespective of his crimes the man has talent and has achieved a great deal. That doesn’t absolve him of his crimes but shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat him with either.

    9. Kismet Hardy — on 14th July, 2010 at 3:38 am  

      Kulvinder, loads of hollywood luvvies like meryl streep have been gushing his praises. I don’t want to be a total hypocrite by disagreeing with you, seeing as I still kinda love woody allen, but there is that Mel Gibson Said What We Must Hate Him Now thing that people jump on, but in Polanski’s case I think it’s fair to say the bandwagon doesn’t apply. He’s a vile rapist cunt and I for one would call Nelson Mandela a vile rapist cunt if he does so, whether a plea-bargain is arranged or not. Plus other than chinatown, his body of works is a heaving pile of shit sausages

    10. tentacles of luvvy — on 14th July, 2010 at 6:29 am  

      “The Pianist” is a “heaving pile of shit sausages”???

    11. Corey Macy — on 14th July, 2010 at 7:13 am  

      I won’t defend Polanski’s actions. Rape is rape and he deserves punishment. But it boggles the mind that people are frothing at the mouth over his alleged escape from justice. Critics of Polanski insist on forcing their 2010 values into the world of 1976. They don’t apply. Having lived as an adult in Los Angeles in 1976, I can say the sexual attitudes and mores were considerably different than today. The attitudes toward older men having sex (yes, I understand t he sex was forced) was much more open. There was little outrage from the public, but certainly he should be sentenced according to the laws of 1976. We simply called it statutory rape then, and didn’t attach “pedophile” and “child molester” labels in these kinds of cases. Today, the public views everyone who has sex with a minor as a pedophile. This is not to judge 2010 values, but simply put 1976 into context. A plea agreement with Polanski is reached, but somewhere during his diagnostic evaluation at the California Institution for Men at Chino, the judge and prosecutor change their mind. Polanski flees. His flight from justice should not be condoned, but it’s certainly understandable. For the next 25 years or so, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office does little to bring him back to justice. People forget about him. Even his Academy Award in 2003, doesn’t prompt the D.A.’s office to take any significant action. What does? A documentary that is critical of the D.A.’s office’s conduct. Sounds politically motivated to me. And that to me is the real miscarriage of justice.

    12. Kulvinder — on 14th July, 2010 at 7:20 am  

      He’s a vile rapist cunt and I for one would call Nelson Mandela a vile rapist cunt if he does so, whether a plea-bargain is arranged or not.

      Well yes, hes a ‘vile rapist cunt’; that does not however mean he should be treated in an arbitrary way which ignores the process of law.
      Its important to highlight that now more than ever; the use of extraordinary rendition etc is just another example of an abuse of process.

    13. Ravi Naik — on 14th July, 2010 at 8:29 am  

      plea-bargain was arranged – by the victim’s own lawyer – which everyone concerned apparently agreed to. The judge then went back on that and polanski ran away.

      He may be a rapist who hasn’t been punished to the extent many would like…

      He is a rapist (who drugged and sodomized a 13-year old) who hasn’t been punished - PERIOD. I do not understand your logic - the judge is foreseeing the case, so whether he changed his mind or not is irrelevant, what really matters is the final outcome.

    14. Rumbold — on 14th July, 2010 at 8:32 am  

      Old Holborn:

      Eh?

      Kulvinder:

      I agree that the rule of law should be upheld for everyone, whatever their crime is. However, there are conflicting views about what was agreed at the trial. And given that one of the views comes from a child rapist, I am not much inclined to trust if.

      If Polanski had spent the last thirty years saying he was a child rapist and giving all his money to rape crisis centres, then his decision to flee would be defensible by his admirers, as he could claim that the only reason he fled was because the deal was renaged on. However, he has shown little or no remorse over his actions, and he doesn’t seem to have grasped that raping a child is wrong.

      Corey Macy:

      That sounds like cultural relatvism to me. He was sentenced according to the laws of 1976. He fled that sentence.

    15. ukliberty — on 14th July, 2010 at 9:33 am  

      Critics of Polanski insist on forcing their 2010 values into the world of 1976. They don’t apply. Having lived as an adult in Los Angeles in 1976, I can say the sexual attitudes and mores were considerably different than today. The attitudes toward older men having sex (yes, I understand t he sex was forced) was much more open. There was little outrage from the public, but certainly he should be sentenced according to the laws of 1976.

      This doesn’t make much sense to me, given the indictment from the grand jury at the time.

    16. sofia — on 14th July, 2010 at 10:28 am  

      Corey as soon as you stuck in the word ‘but’ in your first line I switched off…there is no ‘but’ in rape…but she deserved it, but it was 19fucking 76…but her mother knew where she was blah blah blah…yes his flight from justice as you so poetically put it is understandable..he’s a shite who absconded to escape an inevitable prison sentence..it’s understandable because he’s a coward who RAPED a child. Rape is rape whether it’s 1976 or 2010.

    17. sofia — on 14th July, 2010 at 10:30 am  

      and this was not about an older man having sex with a younger woman…she was a minor…

    18. Refresh — on 14th July, 2010 at 10:55 am  

      Worth a read:

      ‘Johann Hari: So that’s OK then. It’s fine to abuse young girls, as long as you’re a great film director

      The Swiss government has admitted “national interests” may be a factor’

      http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-so-thats-ok-then-its-fine-to-abuse-young-girls-as-long-as-youre-a-great-film-director-2025067.html

    19. Kulvinder — on 14th July, 2010 at 11:09 am  

      I do not understand your logic – the judge is foreseeing the case, so whether he changed his mind or not is irrelevant, what really matters is the final outcome.

      I don’t understand

      However, there are conflicting views about what was agreed at the trial. And given that one of the views comes from a child rapist, I am not much inclined to trust if.

      Polanskis view on all this was and is irrelevant. The discussions between his defence, the DAs office and the judge of the time are what are crucial.

      The very reason the Swiss refused to extradite him is because they also saw there was a strong argument that he had actually served his sentence, and that extraditing him would be against the principles of ‘natural justice’ (or whatever the Swiss equivalent is).

      The various legal departments in the US pointedly refused to give them access to transcripts of what was actually said at the time. Faced with defence representations that he had served his time, and US extradition officials who refused copies of documents which would have proved whether he had or not; they refused extradition.

      If Polanski had spent the last thirty years saying he was a child rapist and giving all his money to rape crisis centres, then his decision to flee would be defensible by his admirers, as he could claim that the only reason he fled was because the deal was renaged on.

      For the sake of argument if someone has served their sentence they have fulfilled any obligation to the public. Irrespective of that i wouldn’t agree with any former criminal having to publicly and constantly state just how much he repented for his crime and just how much they had been reformed.

      A line should be drawn under former convictions.

      To reiterate; none of this should be seen as condoning his crimes.

    20. sofia — on 14th July, 2010 at 11:56 am  

      How has he done his time? 42 days for plying a child with drugs, getting a child drunk, and raping a child..wow…open house then for any other film directors out there

    21. Rumbold — on 14th July, 2010 at 12:07 pm  

      Kulvinder:

      A line should be drawn under former convictions. Shame Robert Polanski didn’t serve his.

    22. Refresh — on 14th July, 2010 at 12:20 pm  

      Mistaken identity would be one defence Rumbold.

      They should have gone for Roman.

    23. Rumbold — on 14th July, 2010 at 12:26 pm  

      Oops. Heh Refresh. Lucky I wasn’t in charge of the inverstigation eh?

    24. Brownie — on 14th July, 2010 at 12:53 pm  

      The crucial factor here is what sentencing agreement - if any - was reached between Polanski’s original trial judge and his lawyers. The fact is we don’t know for certain, and the reason we don’t know for certain is that the US authorities refuse to reveal the documents from a hearing held earlier this year to discuss the original sentencing agreement. This was the basis of the Swiss court’s refusal to extradite Polanski; the claim is that the orignal plea bargain would see Polanski evaluated at a secure psychiatric institution (this happened) and he would then get probation. If this were true, then Polanski would have served his sentence and the question of extradition would be moot. One has to assume that if the plea bargain gave no such indications about Polanski receiving mere probation, the US authorities would have revealed the testimony given at the Jan 2010 hearing. Draw your own conclusions.

      A couple of other points. The only charge Polanski has ever admitted is statutory rape - not sodomy, oral sex with a minor or providing drugs to a minor. This admission was part of the plea bargain - a plea bargain initiated by Geimer’s lawyers, btw (to preserve her then anonymity). If readers accept or demand that the orignal plea bargain was/is rescinded, then these same people need to be careful about what they then state as fact, given such circumstances mean we are then back in realm of unrpoven allegations. Polanski has been found guilty of nothing. If the plea bargain disappears, so does his admission of statutory rape.

      Lastly, it’s interesting to note how, at least in the case of some people, the lack of faith in the US judicial system so apparent when readers were saluting an English court’s refusal to extradite a terrorist-sympathising cleric, is at once restored when US authorities have a Jewish film director in their sights.

    25. Brownie — on 14th July, 2010 at 12:59 pm  

      allowed him to escape a crime for which he was convicted.

      Wrong. Polanski has never been convicted of anything.

    26. Rumbold — on 14th July, 2010 at 1:49 pm  

      Brownie:

      Polanski was found guilty. He fled the country before he could serve his sentence.

      Lastly, it’s interesting to note how, at least in the case of some people, the lack of faith in the US judicial system so apparent when readers were saluting an English court’s refusal to extradite a terrorist-sympathising cleric, is at once restored when US authorities have a Jewish film director in their sights.

      So attacking a child rapist is anti-semitic? I don’t know how to reply to that. I wonder how Jews would feel about that comparison, especially those who have suffered anti-semitic attacks.

    27. sofia — on 14th July, 2010 at 1:51 pm  

      erm what does his religion have to do with anything?

    28. Brownie — on 14th July, 2010 at 2:03 pm  

      Rumbold, okay, in that there was a plea bargain as part of which Polanski admitted statutory rape and which his lawyers claim was supposed to result in probation, he is technically ‘convicted’, but the point is that those who want him extradited aruge the plea bargain is rescinded (as he absconded) and he must stand trial on the six original charges (which include sodomy, etc.). If you accpet this argument, you can’t justifiably talk about him as ‘convicted’, given the whole thrust of your argument is that you want him to be extradited and tried. After all, you’re not arguing for him to be extradited and then put on probation, are you?

      So attacking a child rapist is anti-semitic?

      Oh puh-leaze. Re-read my comment and try again.

    29. BenSix — on 14th July, 2010 at 2:06 pm  

      I might have posted this before - twice, perhaps; three times a lady - but Ken Tynan’s description of Polanski as “the five-foot pole you wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole” is among the best one-liners evar

    30. sofia — on 14th July, 2010 at 2:17 pm  

      Brownie i didn’t get your comment on

      English court’s refusal to extradite a terrorist-sympathising cleric, is at once restored when US authorities have a Jewish film director in their sights

    31. Brownie — on 14th July, 2010 at 2:28 pm  

      sofia, I was being flippant, but the point is that it seems some people’s faith in the robustness of the US judicial system waxes and wanes depending on who is the subject of an extradition request.

    32. Brownie — on 14th July, 2010 at 2:30 pm  

      This pretty much sums up my position.

    33. Rumbold — on 14th July, 2010 at 3:05 pm  

      Thank for for clarifying your position Brownie. That article is a disgrace.

      I would be happy for Polanski to serve the remainder of his time in jail, as well as a severe setence for skipping bail and fleeing the country (jail for a year or two in addition). Probably not enough for his crime, but acceptable under the circumstances. In my view the original conviction stands.

      The assertion in your comment was that people were pursuing him because he was Jewish, which suggests that his critics are anti-semitic. I can’t see any other interpretation of that.

    34. Kismet Hardy — on 14th July, 2010 at 4:31 pm  

      I just found out my landlord, who is a really great plumber and has done incredible things with my washing machine and combi-boiler over the years, was a member of SS-Waffen. But it was a long time ago

    35. Brownie — on 14th July, 2010 at 4:49 pm  

      I would be happy for Polanski to serve the remainder of his time in jail

      You may as well stop there. What “remainder” of his time? The evidence appears to suggest Polanski served the time his trial judge initially agreed he should serve. He was given 90 days and served 42. The Swiss extradition request refusal is a carefully constructed legal argument that hinges on the balance of eveidence available that points to Polanski having done his time. Why else do you think the US refuses to release details of the Jan 2010 hearing into the original plea bargain? If these documents supported their version of events concerning the plea bargain, they could have released them and Polanski would now be on his way to the US.

      For sake of argument, if it were proven that the detials of the plea bargain were as Polanski’s lawyers say they were, I take it you would agree he has no case to answer? What sort of justice demands that he be re-sentenced? Really not liking child rapists doesn’t cut it.

      You’re right the the fact Polanski is Jewish ought not to be a facor, but then neither should the fact that he has admitted statutory rape instead of, say, petty theft. The law should be applied evenly. If Abu Hamza had done his time in a US court but they wanted him back because they’d latterly decided the original plea bargain no logner stood and wanted to lock him up for another 20 years, I’m going to guess you wouldn’t be writing a blog post on PP demanding his extradition. Not because you’re a terrorist sympathiser but because you believe everyone has a right to natural justice.

      Given I’ve never seen you write anything that could be described as anti-Semitic, I’m confident your contradictory position vis-a-vis Polanski and Hamza extraditions would have nothing whatsoever to do with Polanski being Jewish and Hamza being a Msulim. But that wouldn’t make it any the less contradictory.

      The assertion in your comment was that people were pursuing him because he was Jewish

      Nope, not necessarily at least. It could be that some people were happy to see the Hamza request rejected because he is Muslim, or because they think supporters of terrorism are not as bad as child rapists, or because it’s one in the eye for ‘neocons’, or because they regard the likes of Hmaza as working-class revolutionary heroes. There are lots of possbile explanations. I was merely alluding to one differnece in detail amongst many. Something has to explain why the same people who think it’s impossible to get a fair trial in the US on Monday wake up on Wednesday arguing for Polanski’s extradition to, er, the US.

      What’s your explanation?

    36. Brownie — on 14th July, 2010 at 5:00 pm  

      But it was a long time ago

      The public interest is an important consideration when any prosecuting authority decides whether to pursue a case, and “it was a long time ago” is and always has been considered relevant in making such a determination. Ask any lawyer.

      The summarised facts re Polanski are that the alleged and one admitted offence happened more than 30 years ago, he has served at least *some* time for his crime, there is strong evidence supporting his claim that a plea bargain was reached which the US authorities now wish to renege on, he has paid substnatial damages to his vicitm, his victim has petitioned the US courts to drop their pursuit of him, and now the court of a liberal democracy has refused an extradition request at least in part because of a refusal by the US authorities to release documents that would go a long way to either proving or disproving the facts of the original plea bargain as claimed by Polanski’s defence team.

      And all the time, Geimer makes public her distress that this pursuit of Polanski makes it impossible for her to get on with her life.

      Still, lots of people on PP are angry, so let’s get the bastard. Screw the public interest, what about ***our*** interest, eh?

    37. earwicga — on 14th July, 2010 at 5:05 pm  

      he has paid substnatial damages to his vicitm

      Polanski *promised* to pay damages to his victim, but hasn’t actually paid.

    38. cjcjc — on 14th July, 2010 at 5:11 pm  

      Kismet - where is he based?
      Always on the lookout for a great plumber.

    39. Ravi Naik — on 14th July, 2010 at 5:11 pm  

      Tell me, brownie. Do you consider that 42 days is enough punishment for anyone drugging and raping a 13-year old?

      Or is it only reserved for rich and famous people who have money to pay-off victims and go unpunished for despicable and vile acts?

    40. Refresh — on 14th July, 2010 at 5:16 pm  

      Brownie, I think you are the one who should stop.

      ‘The evidence appears to suggest Polanski served the time his trial judge initially agreed he should serve. He was given 90 days and served 42.’

      Initially agreed? What is that? 90 days for ‘statutory rape’? Are you sure that is the case given drugging the victim does not mean consent?

      And if the judge (presumably) had not sentenced in an open court, how can Polanski’s defence suggest he’s served most of it (or any of it)?

      I want to know why he would have been able to secure himself such a bargain.

      My greater distate is for his supporters who mustered such a high profile campaign. Anyone got a list?

      You might recall the scene from Godfather (in the run up to the horse’s head), where a producer is shown to be offered a young girl for his bed by the mother so the girl could get a break in Hollywood. That I am afraid is the sort of depravity we are talking about.

      Upthread someone suggests rape was not quite rape then the way it is today (a bit like Whoopi’s comment) - it was rape then as it is today. The fact that social mores placed the responsibility for chastitiy at the girl’s door is irrelevant. Rape is about power.

    41. Kismet Hardy — on 14th July, 2010 at 5:17 pm  

      cjcjc, he’s in my bedroom usually. You can’t miss him. He’s the one in the mask.

      By the way, when will Mel Gibson pay for his recent crimes? Someone needs to stop him before he makes another historical epic

    42. Brownie — on 14th July, 2010 at 5:36 pm  

      Polanski *promised* to pay damages to his victim, but hasn’t actually paid.

      I think your information is out of date. About 17 years out of date. They settled out of court in 1993.

      Tell me, brownie. Do you consider that 42 days is enough punishment for anyone drugging and raping a 13-year old?

      Why you asking me? Ask the US aothirities who struck the plea bargain which meant all charges other than statutory rape were dropped, including the aggravated charges of drugging the victim that would have meant a much stiffer sentence. The psychiatric reports called for by the court actually argued against incarceration for Polanski - maybe related to having his pregnant wife butchered by a lunatic 8 years earlier - but he got 90 days anyway and served 42.

      Initially agreed? What is that? 90 days for ‘statutory rape’? Are you sure that is the case given drugging the victim does not mean consent?

      Once more, the other charges were ALL DROPPED as part of the plea bargain. Take it up with the US authorities.

      My greater distate is for his supporters who mustered such a high profile campaign.

      That’s ironic, given my distaste is for those who suggest anyone not calling for Polanski’s summary extradition must think child rape a hoot.

      Someone needs to stop [Gibson] before he makes another historical epic

      Seconded.

    43. Quiet Riot Girl — on 14th July, 2010 at 6:17 pm  

      I really hated the discourse around this news. Articles like Johann Hari’s and even this one to an extent just serve to sensationalise and give extra status to one rape case, amongst millions in the years since the actual crime was committed. If everyone who was up in arms about Polanski this week, had spent the last thirty years if they are old enough, campaigning, learning and educating on gender and sexual violence issues, including legal reform, maybe he would not be a free man today. The woman he raped is now in her 40s and she is sick and tired of this ordeal. I think we should draw a line under it and get on with supporting and campaiging for all the other people who get raped, and whose assailants escape justice.

    44. Brownie — on 14th July, 2010 at 6:33 pm  

      What QRG said.

    45. earwicga — on 14th July, 2010 at 7:14 pm  

      I’m afraid Brownie, it is you who is out of date:

      In October 1993, Polanski agreed to pay Geimer $500,000 with interest, according to the settlement documents. He was given two years to pay. But her attorneys said in a filing that the director missed the 1995 deadline. At one point, her attorneys attempted to garnish wages to Polanski from movie studios, his agent and the Screen Actors Guild, the records show.

      The case file does not make clear if Polanski paid Geimer. The last document in the file is an August 1996 statement saying the director still owed her $604,416.

      http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/roman-polanski-paid-samantha-geimer-601583-in-civil-settlement-of-sexual-assault.html

    46. Kismet Hardy — on 14th July, 2010 at 7:36 pm  

      Brownie, I think your whole you can’t argue with the law angle is deeply sad. I have friends who work in the domestic violence sector who question whether they would report getting raped themselves because they’re not sure whether they can go through the whole ordeal knowing only too well that in the majority of cases, the law does fuck all to protect women or bring the perpetrator to justice

      Your law is an ass

    47. Jai — on 14th July, 2010 at 7:36 pm  

      “it was a long time ago” is and always has been considered relevant in making such a determination. Ask any lawyer.

      Lawyers will also confirm that some major crimes don’t necessarily have a statute of limitations when it comes to subsequent prosecutions or the severity of the original crime, regardless of how many years or even decades have elapsed.

    48. Kismet Hardy — on 14th July, 2010 at 7:46 pm  

      This ‘let it go, stop jumping on an old bandwagon just because everyone’s talking about it’ angle is really sad too. We should bang on about it precisely because he’s a celebrity.

      Perpetrators see enough pictures of smiling footballers coming out grinning from court cleared of all wrong-doings

      And don’t pretend when you see those stories in he tabloid, a part of you wonders: ‘bet she lied about it to sell her story’

      People don’t put themselves through a rape case ordeal, knowing statistically they’ll lose the case without concrete evidence (or even when there is!), just for the the hell of it

      Rapists should be on pg3 everyday shown strung by their balls.

    49. Refresh — on 14th July, 2010 at 9:29 pm  

      ‘Once more, the other charges were ALL DROPPED as part of the plea bargain. Take it up with the US authorities.’

      I am also questioning the plea bargain itself, and I take it up with you as you find it all acceptable and then some.

    50. Brownie — on 14th July, 2010 at 11:15 pm  

      earwicga,

      Mrs Geimer seems to disagree.

      In 1988 Samantha Geimer sued Polanski for the assault. They settled out of court in 1993 and she forgave him publicly 10 years later.

      Google it. There are numerous references all over the ‘net. He did take his time paying, it seems, but they did settle for an undisclosed fee in the end, but thought to be crica $500k.

      Brownie, I think your whole you can’t argue with the law angle is deeply sad. I have friends who work in the domestic violence sector who question whether they would report getting raped themselves because they’re not sure whether they can go through the whole ordeal knowing only too well that in the majority of cases, the law does fuck all to protect women or bring the perpetrator to justice

      What in the name of Christ does that have to do with this? Polanski’s victim says she got over this a long time ago (that’s a quote, by the way) and is suffering only because the courts won’t let this drop. She wants an end to this business, but certain DAs in the US do not.

      I share your view of the law in many respects, but it’s not *my* law.

      Lawyers will also confirm that some major crimes don’t necessarily have a statute of limitations when it comes to subsequent prosecutions or the severity of the original crime, regardless of how many years or even decades have elapsed.

      True. Of course I haven’t argued otherwise, but true.

      I am also questioning the plea bargain itself, and I take it up with you as you find it all acceptable and then some.

      Question it all you like, it doesn’t make it go away. As for my views on the matter, I really don’t feel strongly about the Polanski affair either way, which is why I didn’t write a blog post on the subject. But if people are going to argue for a specific course of action, they should acquaint themselves with the bare facts, don’t you think?

    51. Brownie — on 14th July, 2010 at 11:28 pm  

      Jaysus, earwicga, in your own link it says:

      The terms of the settlement were confidential.

      There has to be a settlement in order for it to be ‘confidential’ or otherwise. There’s no record of final payment in the publicly available court files precisely because the parties eventually agreed the terms were to remain confidential.

      You’ve got to have some serious front to post a link that actually contradicts the claim you’re trying to make.

      Are you still going to claim Polanski didn’t pay damages to Geimer even though your own link says:

      The terms of the settlement were confidential.

      ?

    52. persephone — on 14th July, 2010 at 11:46 pm  

      ” The terms of the settlement were confidential.”

      terms do not only have to be related to financial aspects. I wonder if the financial settlement had a condition - that she forgave him publicly. £500k - £600k in the 70′s was a large sum.

    53. Brownie — on 15th July, 2010 at 12:00 am  

      She “forgave him publicly” 10 years later (after the original 1993 damages agreement), so it doubtful these were the terms.

      Given the orignal damages were $500k plus interest and they eventually settled out of court, I think it’s safe to assume any damages were significant.

    54. Refresh — on 15th July, 2010 at 12:00 am  

      ‘But if people are going to argue for a specific course of action, they should acquaint themselves with the bare facts, don’t you think?’

      My issue is with the campaigners and supporters specifically. And you raised your head in a rather ugly way.

      If you were to say that the original plea bargain is due for criticism and that the sentence hadn’t been delivered and that Polanski absconded in anticipation of a sentence less lenient than expected; acknowledge that and then we can talk about the issues around the extradition itself ie due process.

      It is Polanski’s supporters who have muddied the case, which may well have been the objective.

      I would accept the other points about the request eg the US should not be arrogant to expect people to be handed over just because they say so. If they will not (or cannot) provide testimony to a competent Swiss court, then they are at fault and should be criticised for it. And demands be made of it to furnish all relevant material. But not, I repeat not, start proffering excuses for Polanski’s actions.

    55. Brownie — on 15th July, 2010 at 12:51 am  

      But not, I repeat not, start proffering excuses for Polanski’s actions.

      So who has done this, exactly. Because I haven’t.

      My issue is with the campaigners and supporters specifically. And you raised your head in a rather ugly way

      Even though I’m neither a campaigner nor a supporter? Nice. What you mean, of course, is that I pointed out some of the factual inaccuracies in the comments of others.

      If you were to say that the original plea bargain is due for criticism and that the sentence hadn’t been delivered and that Polanski absconded in anticipation of a sentence less lenient than expected; acknowledge that and then we can talk about the issues around the extradition itself ie due process.

      Why would I say this given it’s not true, or at least we cannot know that it is true? Polanski’s lawyers claim prosecuting attorneys at the original hearings have sworn on oath that the terms of the plea bargain were that Polanski would get probation after his 90-day stint. Presumably the truth of this is wrapped up somewhere in the Jan 2010 hearing documents that the US authorities refused to disclose to the Swiss courts. One presumes that if such testimony from January’s hearings showed the opposite of everything claimed by Polanski’s lawyers, the Swiss courts might have had more success getting their hands on the documents.

      I’m not telling anyone that the original plea bargain is beyond criticism, btw. I’m merely pointing out that if it did exist in the form Polanski’s lawyers claim it did, then it’s wholly unsurprising the extradition request was refused. Moreover - and however much we might be appalled by Polanski’s behaviour back in ’78 - Polanski has a natural justice right to have that agreed plea bargain honoured and not face re-sentencing.

    56. earwicga — on 15th July, 2010 at 1:04 am  

      Jaysas, Brownie, how do you know he paid anything? Oh yeah, cos it’s all a big secret. Ha ha :)

      I seriously can’t be arsed to argue with a pathetic cunt like you anyways. Fuck off back to your hole.

    57. Refresh — on 15th July, 2010 at 2:13 am  

      ‘So who has done this, exactly. Because I haven’t.’

      You, amongst one or two others, have. Why else get into a discussion about the victim ‘forgiving’ him? And why else argue that he has never been convicted?

      If he hasn’t been convicted then should he not be sent back to the court he absconded from?

      The fact that the US authorities are incompetent in oh so many ways does not get away from having a legitimate need to have Roman returned to court for sentencing so that justice is served and is seen to be served.

      And finally, why oh why the ugly accusation of anti-semitism, and the obfuscation vis-a-vis Abu Hamza - when all you wanted to do was support due process.

      I would happily bow to Kulvinder’s stance on this point than anything you can muster.

      For what its worth, I would feel quite comfortable rejecting extradition requests on the basis of the US’ ridiculous and sometime unhuman sentencing policies where someone ends up being jailed for 345 years, let alone the death penalty.

    58. Refresh — on 15th July, 2010 at 2:20 am  

      ‘Polanski has a natural justice right to have that agreed plea bargain honoured and not face re-sentencing.’

      Natural justice would have meant a sentence commensurate with the offence - and I don’t believe 90 days is it.

    59. douglas clark — on 15th July, 2010 at 3:20 am  

      Brownie is now an apologist for child rapists. Just because they can pay.

      As someone once said:

      “Fucking Hellski!”

    60. douglas clark — on 15th July, 2010 at 3:24 am  

      Katy Newton,

      Is it the case that Brownie is a lawyer?

      I refer you to previous correspondence about some lawyers being beyond the pale…..

    61. Shamit — on 15th July, 2010 at 8:13 am  

      Brownie - the legal expert:

      Your entire argument is based on the fact that the trial judge did not like the look of the plea bargain. And that is the perogative of the trial judge.

      Every plea bargain is subject to the approval of the court. In this case the court decided the plea bargain was not commensurate with the crimes committed by the perpetrator.

      So what is your point again on that?

      ********************

      And another big hole in your legal argument “the victim forgave the perpetrator”

      Well Brownie - irrespective of whether the victim or the victim’s family forgave the perpetrator - there was a crime committed. And in a criminal case (and this was a fucking criminal case)- the victim has no legal right to forgive the perpetrator.

      If the DA thinks it is a crime that needs to be prosecuted then prosecution goes ahead. Further, when the prosecution took place, the statute of limitations did not expire and the convicted criminal absconded.

      *****************************

      Finally, your moral argument sucks and you should take a look at yourself in the mirror - Mr. Polanski raped a child you moron.

      Rape in itself is about exerting power and causing irrepairable damage to the victim and when it is done to a 13 year old it is a fucking crime of the highest proportion.

      So fuck off.

    62. joe90 — on 15th July, 2010 at 10:42 am  

      I am looking at the hollywood mafia, salman rushdie and in particular Nicolas Sarkozy who all campaigned for a child rapist to be freed. Never has the saying “there is one rule for the rich and one for the rest” been more accurate.

    63. Brownie — on 15th July, 2010 at 1:11 pm  

      Jaysas, Brownie, how do you know he paid anything?

      I don’t know, maybe it’s the “they settled out of court” line you can find all over the internet. Geimer sued for half a mill, they “settled out of court”, she then stoppped her pursuit of damages but you deny any money was paid? I suppose you could be right; perhaps Polanski painted her house, or cut her lawn?

      I seriously can’t be arsed to argue with a pathetic cunt like you anyways. Fuck off back to your hole.

      Were you drinking with Douglas last night?

      You, amongst one or two others, have [profeered excuses for Polanski's actions].

      Nope, I haven’t and what is more you can’t find any examples of my doing so, mainly because they don’t exist. Pointing out that others are spouting off without knowing the first thing about the case is not the same as “proferring excuses”, but I think you know this already.

      The point about Geimer’s views on the case are not so much that she now forgives Polanski, rather that she insists the constant media coverage makes her life hell. She’s saying this, not I. She has petitioned the US courts to stop their pursuit of Polanski, not I. I know you’re all a bit too busy being self-righteous to notice what the victim wants, but actually listening to what she has to say might not be a bad idea.

      Natural justice would have meant a sentence commensurate with the offence – and I don’t believe 90 days is it.

      Good for you. I might even share you view. But guess what? No-one cares. The case for Polanski’s extradition has to be judged on its merits and not decided because in your non-expert view the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. You do see that, don’t you?

      Brownie is now an apologist for child rapists.

      And you are still illiterate.

      Your entire argument is based on the fact that the trial judge did not like the look of the plea bargain.

      No it’s not, but carry on.

      Every plea bargain is subject to the approval of the court. In this case the court decided the plea bargain was not commensurate with the crimes committed by the perpetrator. So what is your point again on that?

      Of course you’re right that the plea bargain needs to be accepted by the court, but the claim is that it was and in return for a guilty plea to statutory rape Polanski got 90 days (serving 42). The judge subsequently claimed the initital sentencing was just for observation whereas Polanski’s lawyers (and prosecution lawyers) claim it was supposed to be the total sentence. So the Polanski argument is not that the judge rejected the plea bargain, but that he accepted it, Polanski was sentenced accordingly, did his time, and the judge then decided he’d arbitrarily heap on some more punishment.

      I take it you can see this would be problematic?

      Of course, this is all claim and counter-claim, for which see my point above about the US refusal to disclose details of the in camera hearing into Polanski’s sentencing held in Jan this year.

      And another big hole in your legal argument “the victim forgave the perpetrator”

      It’s clear you don’t have the first clue what my arguments are, let alone know where the holes are in them.

      So I’ve argued coherently and dispassionately, held off the invective and name-calling and in return been called a “cunt”, told to “fuck off” and been accused of “proferring excuses for chid rape”.

      Still, those comments boxes at HP are full of extremists, aren’t they?

      It was a blast.

    64. Kismet Hardy — on 15th July, 2010 at 1:15 pm  

      Well if Moat can have thousands of supporters…

    65. Shamit — on 15th July, 2010 at 2:57 pm  

      You did say the victim forgave the criminal - didn’t you?

      what’s that got to do with a criminal case? Secondly, you with your remarkable intelligence suggested that the trial judge changed his mind -

      Well - it is the bloody perogrative of the judge to do so. That’s why the Judge is the Judge -

      And I have read through all your posts- its seems that you have nothing real to say but clutch at straws - may be using some grey matter may not be such a bad thing.

      Finally, I ain’t got time to discuss what HP is or not - Its not my battle - but I prefer PP. As I am a friend of Sunny & rumbold my loyalties lie with HP - but who cares anyways?

      If you got a real argument - I would debate you and without adjectives - but as earwigca said you got none mate.

    66. Refresh — on 15th July, 2010 at 8:51 pm  

      ‘Still, those comments boxes at HP are full of extremists, aren’t they?’

      Indeed they are. I’d still like to give them some credit and expect even they can see the line.

    67. Brownie — on 17th July, 2010 at 12:20 am  

      If you got a real argument – I would debate you and without adjectives – but as earwigca said you got none mate.

      Hehe. It’s quite remarkable - not that you disagree with the argument against extradition, but that you don’t believe any such argument even exists. Which is a shame for you given a court in a liberal demcoracy just refused the US extradition request and cited the US court refusal to disclose documents pertaining to the hearing into the original sentencing and the confusion that surrounds the original sentencing as grounds for doing so.

      Then agian, you know those Swiss Judges; famous for proffering excuses for child rape!

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.