I can find no better article on the Roman Polanski rape case and the film industry’s reaction to it than this one by Dennis Prager. Here’s part of the article:
As virtually no one has ever suggested the girl lied, it is universally acknowledged that at age 43, Roman Polanski raped a 13-year-old girl.
One would think that anyone with a functioning conscience would condemn the terrible act. Or to put it another way: If a middle-aged man raping a 13-year-old girl is not obviously terrible, what is?
Yet, leading members of the film world in Europe and America world do not see it that way.
As Britain’s Guardian newspaper wrote: “The list of supporters giving Polanski their impassioned support read like a Who’s Who of the cream of the movie-making world. It included, among many others, Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Harvey Weinstein, Pedro Almodovar and Ethan Coen.” […]
As noted by many observers, imagine if Polanski were a Roman Catholic priest — or a Republican politician — accused of the same crime. All hell would have fallen on the man’s head. The Boston Globe cited the Rev. James Martin, associate editor of America magazine: “If Polanski were in a collar there would be no boo-hooing about his recent plight. There would be zero pity for him. … Can you imagine a petition being circulated among actors, directors, and producers in the United States to have a Catholic priest reinstated in his parish after he had abused a 13-year-old child? If you believe this about Polanski — that his good deeds offset his guilt and that enough time has passed — do you believe the same about pedophile priests?” […]
We have reason to be grateful to the Polanski affair. It offers that most needed of virtues: clarity. It has made the average citizen aware of how broken the cultural elite’s moral compass is. [… T]he next time you see the Hollywood elite come out on behalf of or against some public issue, you can most likely assume the opposite is the morally correct position.
I was disappointed to see that Tilda Swinton also signed the petition supporting child-rapist Polanski. Swinton played the White Witch in the recent Chronicles of Narnia films.
It’s interesting that some in Hollywood are protesting that critics are painting with too broad of a brush. Screenwriter Josh Olson wrote a piece quoted on this Los Angeles Times blog lamenting the hasty generalization of some reporters who imply or state outright that “Hollywood” is supporting Polanski. I found this bit entertaining:
As a rule, when I read the news that a fugitive from justice has been caught, my standard response is to think, “How nice,” and turn the page. If it’s a particularly interesting story, I might tell my girlfriend about it, but until this moment it never occurred to me that I was supposed to alert the media as to my feelings on the subject. It’s hard enough keeping up with all the injustice in the world. Now we have to stand up and shout every time it goes the way it’s supposed to? No offense to Ms. Silverstein, but some of us have jobs. […]
But as far as Hollywood’s concerned, we’re not rallying behind anyone, and it sure would be nice if folks could find a way of discussing this issue without creating ridiculous and childish caricatures of people who have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Right. What was the plot of American Beauty again? How many Oscars did it win? How does Hollywood feel about Elia Kazan? How did they feel about George W. Bush? No, no, they never alert the media as to their feelings on a particular subject, especially about a specific injustice. And far be it from Hollywood to ever take part in ridiculous and childish caricatures.
I think Dennis Prager got it exactly right.
You might want to learn a little about the “rape” before forming your opinions.
1) The girl was not a virgin.
2) She had “been in the business” for a several years
3) She regularly used drugs and had sex
4) She was at Jack Nicholson’s house willingly alone with him
5) This was not their first “private session” together
6) She willingly disrobed and got both into the hot tub and bed
7) Polanski was still suffering from the brutal death of his wife and their unborn child, and his best friend had died 6 months before that
Although I am not condoning statutory rape , I also am aware Samantha Greimer requested the charges be dropped AND this did occur 30 years ago…
Do you not notice the coincidence of the age 13 in recent news?????
Oh yeah… his original sentence was 90 days under psychiatric care
kcdad, you never cease to amaze me…
Is that true that Polanski’s original sentence was only 90 days under psychiatric care? If so, he know deserves any punishment he gets–deserves it for sheer stupidity.
So, if “Dennis Prager got it exactly right” and he says that “the next time you see the Hollywood elite come out on behalf of or against some public issue, you can most likely assume the opposite is the morally correct position”, does that mean if the “Hollywood elite” comes out against, say, the tragedies of Darfur, that the “morally correct position” is genocide? Or if, say, after 9/11 the “Tribute to Heroes” fundraiser, the morally correct position would be to support and defend the 9/11 attacks?
These are obviously extreme examples, but it goes too far to say that if Group X believes Y, then the right thing to do is the opposite of Y. Nothing is that black-and-white in the world, especially across a spectrum of issues. While it’s true that there will always be groups that any of us disagree with on a number of issues, it’s closed-minded to dismiss every little thing they say without giving a thought about it, just because most of the time you disagree with them.
kcdad — Ah yes, blaming the victim. In fact, the rapist himself was the victim. Isn’t that every rapist’s defense (and justification)?
He drugged a 13-year-old and had sex with her against her will. It’s rape. No scare quotes, no qualifiers. Rape. He’s been a fugitive from justice. I can’t believe anyone would defend something so horrific.
Sterling — He said “most likely assume.” Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Wow, I can’t tell you how sickened I am by kcdad’s post. No words…
Why is it necessary to make this a liberal vs conservative issue?
Polanski drugged and sodomized a 13 year old girl. He was a middle aged man. According to court records, she said “No!” If that isn’t rape, I don’t know what is.
Kcdad….way off on this one.
kc: Heretofore I’ve thought you to be an inveterate, yet harmless provocateur. Suddenly I’m very afraid as to what might be found in your basement.
KCDad’s “I’m not condoning rape, but…” statement reminds me of how I figured out how to spot a racist. They usually start their sentences, “I’m not a racist, but…”
I believe Polanski is a corrupt person and should be punished for the original crime as well as for fleeing the punishment while still enjoying years of fame and wealth. That said, I am amazed at those who feel so free of sin that they can say, “Thank God I am not as that sinner.” Remember how much flack Jimmy Carter took for saying that he believed–as stated by Jesus–that those who lust in their hearts are as guillty as those who commit the act–actually, Carter humbly accepted that indictment for himself. I remember how his opponents–many on the religious right (actually some of whom had taught me to believe just that)–then attacked him for his admission that he lusted in his heart–as though there are any of us whose hearts are that pure. And, of course, I have to say that you all are now attacking kcdad as though he had committed the crime. Sud O Nym, I believe I recall that several of our current politicians guilty of recent sexual indiscretions were the very ones that spoke loudly with disdain about Clinton’s behavior.
Sharon, when kcdad was attacking me, you remained silent! Even CJ came on here and told kc to back off! This is one of the first posts I have read from you that doesn’t start with “kcdad, I agree with you!” This is a person who does not have a problem letting others know when he believes they are wrong and is famous for name calling. Now, you haul in Jesus! Give me a break! Sharon, do you have daughters? Thirteen years old! That is a child. And for anyone in this day and age to even suggest it is the victims’s fault is heresy! Shame on you for standing up for anyone that would condone Polanski’s vicious, self-serving crime of lust and make it the fault of the victim. Where in the Bible does it say sodomizing any child should be defended?
Well, I’m a pretty shitty Christian, but I do think there are different degrees of sin. But we aren’t talking about sin here, we are talking about crime. KCDad wasn’t saying that we should forgive Polanski as good Christians, he was giving a defense against the crime of statutory (and likely, regular) rape. I only pointed out that people who start out a sentence with “I’m not x, but y” are usually x.
I honestly missed his attack on you–what was the nature of the subject–because I don’t recall ever disagreeing with you. Maybe you’ve forgotten how often kcdad has attacked my thinking. I write often–I don’t think I begin that many posts with agreement with kcdad–but I do often agree with, at least, some of what he says. I wasn’t defending kcdad’s defense of Polanski, just calling attention to the fact that kcdad didn’t commit a crime–just listed the facts of the case–and I assume information about the girl that had been published at some point. I would assume that in a court of law most of that information would be admissable–and that the judge and/or the jury would be asked to take all the factors into account–so why shouldn’t we’? Since Jesus spoke on this very subject, I feel it very appropriate to bring him into the subject–I try to bring him into all my thinking (fail sometimes, however). At least, I find Jesus relevant in any argument be it health care or rape. I’m going to go out on another limb here. I worked with teenagers for a long time and I did observe the behaviors of some very young girls–I’m sure they don’t behave as you would expect the average 13-year-old to behave–or your daughter. I have no problem with punishing rapists to the fullest extent. However, I, also, have no problem with telling young girls that they are still responsible for their own behaviors. I realize that the law was often tilted way too far the other way (probably even in the Polanski case)–and that wrongs had to be righted. As in all cases of “righting wrongs,” we often go too far in the other direction. I think this is one of the cases. I believe that girls do need to be taught that they have a responsibility to protect their own virginity. I think the message that we often send to young girls is wrong–the message that they bear no responsibility or accountability in some of these situations. Certainly, if the girl in this case behaved in the way that kcdad stated, then why would you call her innocent? Of course, Polanski was still guilty–her guilt or behavior doesn’t make him innocent.
Syd no nym – I knew I was going to take considerable flake for my statements. I do agree with you–that there is a difference between sin and a crime. In that lusting in your heart is not a crime–Jesus seemed to imply (or came right out and said so), however, that there was no moral difference between the act and the thought–that’s what makes Christianity so hard to swallow for many–few (none really) can escape the realization that we are all capable of sin and no better than the next guy–dare I say Polanski. Tell me with all you know about the Bible (without the saving grace of Jesus) are you or any of us any better than Polanski? And that saving grace doesn’t give any of us reason to brag about our great morality. You know, the realization that makes us all say, “Lord, be mericiful to me, a sinner.”
I do not care how promiscuous that girl was. I don’t care if she was sexually active. I don’t even care if she came on to him, which I do not believe was the case here. She was 13. He was an adult. Jesus, or no Jesus, having sex with children is just plain wrong. If he were 18 and she were 17, then I might see the situation differently, but he was a middle aged man at the time. When my daughter was 13 and went to her girlfriend’s home, I did not expect her to come home raped, even if for some reason she was left alone with the man of the house. When she would babysit, I expected her to come home safe and sound. Polanski had been hired by Vogue to take pictures of young girls, not rape them. There is no way there is any excuse for his behavior. I don’t care if she stood in front of him and took off her clothes and begged him to take her….. it’s wrong. This isn’t Thailand!!! (I think it’s wrong in Thailand too!!)
I didn’t defend anything, other than the ironic outrage at a 30 year old crime in which the victim has said to everyone “get over it”.
Yes, Polanski had sex with a minor (statutory rape)… yes she was willing (so what?)… yes he was sentenced to 90 days and he left the country… she willing took the ludes and drank the champagne… and not for the first time… IT IS WHAT THE MODELING WORLD IS… whether you like it or not. I was in LA for several years in the film business… it is ALL about sex.
What is the outrage now???
All I was doing was explaining the mitigating circumstances that apparently the original judge recognized as well… as demonstrated by is sentencing.
Yes MAWB it is “wrong”. OK. It is wrong. Now what?
“# C. J. Summerson 07 Oct 2009
kcdad — Ah yes, blaming the victim. In fact, the rapist himself was the victim. Isn’t that every rapist’s defense (and justification)?
He drugged a 13-year-old and had sex with her against her will. It’s rape. No scare quotes, no qualifiers. Rape. He’s been a fugitive from justice. I can’t believe anyone would defend something so horrific.”
Why don’t you explain it to CJ…..
Sharon, the attack on MAWB occurred Aug 7 (Open Mailbox) and led CJ to ask why he shouldn’t consider kcdad a “troll”. That led shortly thereafter to the Aug 23 kcdad World View Repository, an ultimately failed experiment in which CJ said:
“This is not “teaching.” It’s not “making people think.” It’s nothing more than being obnoxious and deliberately obtuse for his own entertainment.”
As for your reaction/defense here, I couldn’t help but be reminded of a post from Emerge:
“kcdad got that mojo:
The Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological shift that occurs in captives when they are shown acts of kindness by their captors. Captives who exhibit the syndrome tend to sympathize with and think highly of their captors, at times believing that the captors are showing them favor stemming from inherent kindness. Such captives fail to recognize that their captors’ choices are essentially self-serving. When subjected to prolonged captivity, these captives can develop a strong bond with their captors, in some cases (especially with a captor of the opposite sex) including a sexual interest.
🙂 ”
History does tend to repeat itself… 🙂
WARNING: The following quote is graphic and disturbing. Viewer discretion is advised.
From the L. A. Times:
Let’s be clear: this girl was NOT willing. She was afraid. She said “no” several times. She told him to “keep away.” She was raped and sodomized.
That’s the outrage, kcdad. That you can’t see it is beyond disturbing.
And that Sharon compares Polanski’s behavior to that of politicians…. (I missed where any of them were accused of rape or having sex with a child) and that she continually defends kcdad, no matter what his position, only adds to the disturbance. Something is very wrong here.
Jon, I still don’t know what the nature of the attack was on MAWB–I know that I thought the whole troll thing was uncalled for. There are two bloggers on the site that are personal friends of kcdad’s. One I know and the other I only know from what he/she writes on the blog. I decided a long time ago that I would take the word of two people who know him personally rather than the opinions of those who overreact to everything he writes. At least, he made himself known to several of us at a District-Watch meeting–instead of remaining anonymous. Of course, I think his ideas are sometimes outrageous–but he isn’t alone. Most of you see his name and dismiss everything he says and/or nitpick. Just disagree with him–without all the emotion that borders on hate and disdain. Now, Jon, Emerge, I believe, meant to be funny with her Stockholm Syndrome–that was her humor–it doesn’t work so well the second time around, but if it makes you feel good, fine–you evidently got some kick out of just rewriting it. I did somewhat over-react to the Polanski issue–only because I am always put off by the overreaction to sexual sins (although the criminal element in this story does make it more offensive). I’m still amazed–because I didn’t follow the case that well–that Polanski’s punishment was only for 90 days–and to think he has run from the law for 30 years when it could have ended in 90 days. On a scale of one to ten, I’m not so sure that Polanski is a worse humanbeing (for instance) than Madoff (is that how to spell his name). Madoff ruined many more lives and was very calculating and cold-hearted in so doing. However, I don’t know the heart of either man. I don’t know if either have suffered or been sorry for their wrongdoing–and it doesn’t matter to me because I know that God knows their hearts and will judge them accordingly. And isn’t it amazing to know that redemption is offered to both of them–up to them whether or not to accept it (it’s called amazing grace). And both could be just as redeemed in God’s eyes as any of us. I honestly don’t know (haven’t paid attention) to what kind of life Polanski has lived for the last 30 years–maybe the same kind or maybe turned his life around. However, he will probably still be punished now–and that’s up to the law and is fine with me.
No, I had never read the transcript before–and, of course, it is offensive–and, what is worse, is probably not that uncommon, then or now–and not just in Hollywood. I am still confused as to why Polanski’s sentence was only 90 days with psychiatric care–or is that not what happened? And is that sentence an indication of how differently rape was viewed then compared to today–and rightly so? MAWB, I don’t think I compared Polanski’s behavior to that of politicians’. My whole point in all of this is that–from a biblical point of view–all of our sins are just as outrageous in God’s sight–that I don’t have a right to look at anyone else, even Polanski, to say that I am less a sinner–maybe less a criminal but not less a sinner. But I have never said that he shouldn’t be punished–I just don’t feel vindicated or joyful about his punishment. I guess I would like to hear how his victim feels–her feelings are more important than mine.
Well if that is the case Sharon, you and I do not believe in the same God. The God I believe in at the very least acknowledges the difference between someone who rapes a child or commits murder and someone who tells a white lie.
11bravo–then your God is not the biblical God–and that’s OK–I’m just speaking of the God of the Bible. You know the “all your righteousness is as filthy rags” in God’s sight. But then the amazing grace comes in. I don’t mean to be theological, but it is such a fundamental belief of the Bible that I can’t help but point it out when people become so outraged by the sins of others–so, I am curious, from where does your view of God come?
Sharon, your theology is off here. The Bible does not teach that all sins are the same. For example, Jesus told Pilate, “‘You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin'” (John 19:11). So Jesus acknowledged that there are greater and lesser sins. Furthermore, the Old Testament law instituted a harsher punishment for some sins than others.
I understand your point that all sin separates us from God, and we’ve all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I agree with that. But that doesn’t mean that particular sins don’t have relative severity. Also, perhaps you recall that there is an unpardonable sin: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It would seem that this is worse than all others.
C.J., we get our theology from the same place and you express it perfectly; I totally agree. I was going for the facet of the gospel expressed in your last paragraph–simply to say that no matter how moral a person is compared to Polanksi or anyone else, without saving grace our morality gets us nowhere. Now the blashemy against the Holy Spirit is a bit of a theological mystery. I have come to believe that that particular sin relates to the one I just mentioned. The Holy Spirit is the one who convicts us to bring us to saving faith–when we reject his call, we sin that great sin that forever separates us from God. Just my view. Now I will be happy to put the Polanski argument to rest–and to let the law handle his crime on this earth. You do bring up a whole new discussion with regard to the Old and New Testament–but doesn’t the New Testament show us the grace of God (and the whole idea of Jesus coming to fulfill the law, etc.); therefore, we no longer live under the law but under grace–(but the Old reveals God’s grace, too), so I’ll let that go for another time.
Not to change the subject, but….
Dodgers Magic Number = 2
I was wrong–I do have one more Biblical point to bring up with regard to Polanski’s sin/crime. The Bible, I believe, speaks to just about all situations. Certainly, the David and Batheseba story deals with this particular sin. Granted we don’t know Bathseba’s age but we have David as an authority lusting for her and “demanding” her presence. Now we don’t have a transcript describing the whole sordid affair (but an explicit description of the incident would probably have shocked our sensibilities), and we know that David added murder to his sexual indiscretion (sin). The basic difference in the O.T. story and the Polanski’s story, of course, is that David had a change of heart. David suffered the natural consequences of his sin (with, undoubtedly, some of God’s judgment thrown in), but God loved David inspite of his sin–said David was a man after his own heart. None of this argument has anything to do with excusing Polanski–I am just pointing out God’s view of the sin itself–that it is not so abhorrent to God that he couldn’t forgive the repented sin. Just wanted to make a point about God–not about Polanski. God is good–all the time and often forgives what we find unforgivable–thank God!
I did take a quick look at the story of Polanski’s life–not, in any way, an excuse for his behavior, but he certainly has had a tragic life. The horror of the Holocaust, the killing of his wife by Charles Manson. And, as is often the case, he has contributed to his own tragedy.
And the 13-year-old girl in the Polanski story–where in the heck were her parents before they filed the suit against Polanski? I guess they didn’t see the danger (maybe just the money) in their daughter’s life.
Lolita redux.
Your moral outrage is well understood… it is what we do better than anything else in this country. However in your haste to condemn another human being you have forgotten one simple reality: little girls don’t always tell the the truth about sex, drugs and dancing with witches in the woods.
I read that same transcript and more, CJ. WHat you seem to gloss over are the obvious:
1) She willingness posed nude
2) She willingly went to a strangers home and was alone with Polanski
3) She recognized the ludes, she knew what they were
4) She indicated that the drinking and drugs were nothing new to her
5) She indicated that the sex was nothing new to her
6) the last par to f the transcript you quoted : Oh, don’t tell your mother about this.”
He added: “This is our secret.” sounds so NOT like a Hollywood producer or director but exactly like something coming out of the McMartin Preschool witch trials of the times.
I ABSOLUTELY understand that Polanski, a single male in his 40s had sex with a girl, a single 13 year old wanna be a star. Was it against her will? Legally yes, because she can not give consent. However, I don’t think that her “handlers” had told her anything other than “Do what you have to do to become famous.” And she did.
YES… Samantha was a victim.
SO WHAT? It was 30 years ago. She has gotten over it. YOU SHOULD TOO.
What is it about your lust for retribution, vengeance and “justice” that fills you with such fury over this? Can’t you find anything a little more current and timely to get worked up over… or is that too risky? John Ensign or Mike Duvall? How about all the sexual scandals involving teachers or coaches and their students? What about our own local representatives? There is more than enough RIGHT NOW for you to get righteously indignant about. The Governors of New York and South Carolina? What about our local priests and ministers? What about the college kids and high schools kids we hear about every week it seems…
http://www.badjocks.com/archive/hs-coach-sex-scandals.htm
http://www.badjocks.com/archive/2005/top_high_school_coach_sex_scandals_2005.htm
http://www.badjocks.com/archive/2006/top_high_school_coach_sex_scandals_2006.htm
http://www.badjocks.com/archive/2007/top_high_school_coach_sex_scandals_2007.htm
Here is just the past 4 years of sex scandals in sports… where’s the furor?
C.J. I don’t want to get into a scriptural debate with you because they are always, in the end, pointless… we all find what we want in the scriptures… However I must point out that quoting John as a “historical” source is fraught with dangers…
Do you really think that the Roman Imperial Prelate in Jerusalem, a hero of Rome, hand selected by Caesar, would be as the author of the Gospel of John described (60 or 70 years after the event)
John 19:8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;
Pilate afraid? As Rome demonstrated 40 years later (one generation, mind you) they could reduce Jerusalem to a pile of rocks with a single word.
And as to Jesus’ supposed quote, there is NO sin. The atonement has been made and the sacrifice offered and the sin is expunged. You didn’t have to be there when the sacrifice was made. You don’t even have to acknowledge that it was made…That is the whole point of a sacrifice, that it appeases an angry vengeful God…and IT WAS MADE.
“therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.”
Whose is the “greater sin”, CJ. The man who has sex with an underage girl (forced or not) or the person who puts the girl in that situation to be victimized (even if it is herself)??????
“And is that sentence (90 days) an indication of how differently rape was viewed then compared to today–and rightly so?”
And rightly so?!?!?! No, that comment doesn’t excuse anything, just as explaining the “mitigating circumstances” (all those that describe the victim) that may have led to a 90 day sentence doesn’t excuse anything either, I guess.
For some, it’s apparently worth 90 days to brutally rape a child and any outrage is “ironic”.
“Whose is the “greater sin”, CJ. The man who has sex with an underage girl (forced or not) or the person who puts the girl in that situation to be victimized (even if it is herself)??????”
When dealing with the former, what relevance is the latter? Is the crime any different if the victim is “more sinful” than less?
I’m sorry, honey. Since you had had sex with your boyfriend before, the fact that another man raped you means that we’ll give him a lighter sentence?!?!?!?!
Now she lied about the whole thing to be famous? You’re a sick man, kcdad, assuming you really believe this tripe you’ve been writing and haven’t just been trolling — I’m still not convinced.
While the incident itself is outrageous, as I said, the original point of my post was to express outrage at those who are now defending him. That’s why it’s timely.
I didn’t claim she lied… I suggested she might have embellished… just as you did with my post.
No one is “defending” his behavior… they are defending the position that we should GET OVER IT.
jon: “brutally rape” ????
“Whose is the “greater sin” …and of course you missed the point… neither the girl or Polanski are responsible for her being there… her adult parents, agents and managers are.
“…you have forgotten one simple reality: little girls don’t always tell the the truth about sex, drugs….” — kcdad
“I didn’t claim she lied…” — kcdad, a few minutes later
Will the real kcdad please stand up?
Kcdad still doesn’t want to put the blame where the blame lies; with Polanski. He wants to blame the girl, the mother, anyone but the perpetrator. Yes, CJ, I do believe he is trolling, as usual, because he gets off on controversy. But, trolling over this topic makes him look like someone who has been accused of the same but doesn’t want to take responsibility for their actions. If I am correct, he teaches at the college level with girls who are barely of age. I find that scary after everything he has said here, even if it was just for trolling purposes. I would not want my daughter to be anywhere near him.
I don’t know C.J………
“…little girls DON’T ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH,” does not sound like he was saying she did in fact lie.
I am just saying is all…………………….
MAWB,
You might want to check YOUR anger at the door. What you are insinuating in your last post can do a great deal of harm……………
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm
This is an interesting link dealing with other cases of rape/sexual misconduct………………
Before anyone starts burning me at the stake, I do not condone Polanski or his actions, etc…………………
“…little girls DON’T ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH,” does insinuate she did in fact lie. I am just saying is all….
No one does more harm to kcdad than he does to himself. I think blaming the victim causes much more harm and I stand by the fact that I would not want my daughter in his/her or anyone’s class or home who believes that blaming the victim is at anytime plausible.
MAWB: Are you familiar with the McMartin Preschool trial?
Not to justify Polanski’s actions in any way, but it’s well known that the judge and the Deputy D.A. in this case had agreed in private on the sentence. The judge then told Polanski’s attorney what he was going to do. Wink wink. The only thing missing from that conversation was a ticket to France.
” C. J. Summers “…you have forgotten one simple reality: little girls don’t always tell the the truth about sex, drugs….” — kcdad
“I didn’t claim she lied…” — kcdad, a few minutes later
Will the real kcdad please stand up?”
Why do you always ask me? It appears you don’t have the gonads to ask CJ
And, New Voice…. ck out your friend’s latest comment…. seems I was right. He absolutely was insinuating little girls lie.
“and of course you missed the point… neither the girl or Polanski are responsible for her being there… her adult parents, agents and managers are.”
No, I rejected your point. Any “guilt” on the part of the girl or her parents, agents, etc is irrelevant when it comes to assessing Polanski’s guilt and punishment.
I’m sorry, since your mother put you in a bad situation, and Polanski took advantage of it and raped you, we’re going to give him a lighter sentence. Is that your point?
“Why do you always ask me? It appears you don’t have the gonads to ask CJ”
As usual, you think everything is about you. You are not the only person reading this blog, nor asking questions nor do I respond to anyone specifically unless I insert their pseudonym in front of a statement. There are times when I include responses to several different people in the same post… what a surprise!
What do gonads have to do with it? Men and women both have gonads. Did you mean specifically testicles?
“Any “guilt” on the part of the girl or her parents, agents, etc is irrelevant when it comes to assessing Polanski’s guilt and punishment.”
exactly the way Jesus responded to Pilate… or is it?
His punishment and guilt were already determined… what is at issue is whether, now, 30 years later, should he have his otherwise redeemed life ruined for the sake of some righteous indignation on the part of a uneffected (yet obviously quite AFFected) populous.
This extradition is about fleeing the jurisdiction of the court… NOT about the charges against Polanski on his sexual behavior.
“Samantha Greimer requested the charges be dropped AND this did occur 30 years ago…”
“No one is “defending” his behavior… they are defending the position that we should GET OVER IT.”
Rather than focus on those two points, some choose to talk about the victim’s past (she wasn’t a virgin, she willingly posed nude, etc.) and insinuate that she lied. For what purpose?