roman polanski

Older story but Ziggy's movie plot made me think of this. Did Dateline go to far? Did they intrude into law enforcement?
I think NO. Perverted Justice [the citizen's group] and Dateline both have long records of responsibly working with law enforcement. They don't MAKE anything happen they just make circumstances available and people / predators make their own choices. I suspect that Dateline did not steamroll anyone into making an arrest as much as they presented the evidence they had to law enforcement and that evidence all pointed to a crime.

I refuse to see any of his movies

I figure if he’s going to thumb his nose at the American Justice System than he doesn’t need my American Money.



In fact I don’t think his movies should be shown here but that’s just me

For me, it really has nothing to do with the fact that the former victim wants it dropped. I’m glad she wants to move on with her life, I really am. It has to do with the fact that he not only broke major laws here, he skipped out on a his crime.

ziggy wrote:No Manson family member incarcerated will go free imo. The just denied Leslie again and she was the most likely to be granted parole.

OK let's revisit: Roman Polnaski photographs an underage girl - not just underage: 13 years old. He gives her champagne and qualudes and then becomes a sexual aggressor complete with doing her in the butt OK? No. That is not OK. What's with me and all the OKs today???!!!!

He should have been prosecuted long ago, that's true, but still - he's a perv and he always has been and I'm glad they've made his Romanskiing around in the U.S. all but impossible!!!! Let the French have him or whoever. I wish Dog the Bounty Hunter would go find his sorry wrinkled old balls and drag him back here!!!

Wow, too much Red Bull today.

I agree that what he did is not ok, however, society was much different then than it is now, that still does NOT make what he did ok and I am not trying to be a NAMBLA apologist, but I think one has to take in to consideration that at the time, things like this were happening alot more often right out in the open than they are now, it was just a more liberal sexually tolerant society that we lived in at the time, again that does not make what he did ok but I think it is something that needs to be considered. I have a lot more to say about this case as the whole Polanski/Manson/Laurel Canyon scene of the 60s/70s is of great interest to me and something I have spent a lot of time investigating over the years, I just think we need to look at this from a more broad perspective than we commonly have in the recent past.


Lets also not forget that all the experts involved in this case at the time indicated that he should not have served prison time for what he did, The judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, received a probation report and psychiatric evaluation, both indicating that Polanski should not serve jail time.

Lets also not forget that he did indeed serve 42 days at Chino State Prison undergoing extensiove psychological evaluation and was released early, originally having been sentenced to 90 days there, with all recommendations being that he should only receive probation or the offense and that he did not pose any further threat to society, it was pretty much consensus that it was simply a case of bad judgment while under the influence.

In the weeks leading up to his final sentencing hearing it was agreed that he would only be sentenced to probation then at the last minute the judge decided to go back on this agreement and threatened to sentence him to more jail time (at the time the judge was suggesting 8 months more in jail at most) and possible deportation. After his lawyers were informed that the judge was going back on earlier agreements and promises that he was only going to be sentenced to probation, Polanski decided to flee at that time and he did so because his lawyer told him that he was likely going to be deported anyway so he decided to do it himself.

In any event, he was only going to serve 8 months at most for what he did which tells me 2 things, one, he fucked up by just not manning up and serving the 8 months and getting it over with, and two, such a short sentence for what he allegedly did tells me that the evidence may not have been as solid as some seem to indicate.


I also think in a case like this, absent any evidence of threats or fear, if the victim doesnt wish to further pursue the case then it should be dropped.

Last, for now, the victim did agree to a pretty nice monetary settlement of which Polanski eventually paid her in full, which some have said to be upwards of a million dollars.

More later.

Unbelievable but Percy has my vote on this one!
BTW, one wine cooler is all I had.

I think Pax is right on regarding the historical context of sexuality in society. Another point about context in this crime is that Polanski was from a culture where you could be incarcerated for no clearly specified reason and for no specified amount of time. His running, in that light, is more understandable, imo.

As for not allowing his movies to be shown in America... I don't have the energy or spirit to go into how very wrong-headed that idea is. To start us out, though: consider the history of that way of thinking in America.

Percy wrote:

ziggy wrote:No Manson family member incarcerated will go free imo. The just denied Leslie again and she was the most likely to be granted parole.

OK let's revisit: Roman Polnaski photographs an underage girl - not just underage: 13 years old. He gives her champagne and qualudes and then becomes a sexual aggressor complete with doing her in the butt OK? No. That is not OK. What's with me and all the OKs today???!!!!

He should have been prosecuted long ago, that's true, but still - he's a perv and he always has been and I'm glad they've made his Romanskiing around in the U.S. all but impossible!!!! Let the French have him or whoever. I wish Dog the Bounty Hunter would go find his sorry wrinkled old balls and drag him back here!!!

Wow, too much Red Bull today.

I agree that what he did is not ok, however, society was much different then than it is now, that still does NOT make what he did ok and I am not trying to be a NAMBLA apologist, but I think one has to take in to consideration that at the time, things like this were happening alot more often right out in the open than they are now, it was just a more liberal sexually tolerant society that we lived in at the time, again that does not make what he did ok but I think it is something that needs to be considered. I have a lot more to say about this case as the whole Polanski/Manson/Laurel Canyon scene of the 60s/70s is of great interest to me and something I have spent a lot of time investigating over the years, I just think we need to look at this from a more broad perspective than we commonly have in the recent past.


Lets also not forget that all the experts involved in this case at the time indicated that he should not have served prison time for what he did, The judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, received a probation report and psychiatric evaluation, both indicating that Polanski should not serve jail time.

Lets also not forget that he did indeed serve 42 days at Chino State Prison undergoing extensiove psychological evaluation and was released early, originally having been sentenced to 90 days there, with all recommendations being that he should only receive probation or the offense and that he did not pose any further threat to society, it was pretty much consensus that it was simply a case of bad judgment while under the influence.

In the weeks leading up to his final sentencing hearing it was agreed that he would only be sentenced to probation then at the last minute the judge decided to go back on this agreement and threatened to sentence him to more jail time (at the time the judge was suggesting 8 months more in jail at most) and possible deportation. After his lawyers were informed that the judge was going back on earlier agreements and promises that he was only going to be sentenced to probation, Polanski decided to flee at that time and he did so because his lawyer told him that he was likely going to be deported anyway so he decided to do it himself.

In any event, he was only going to serve 8 months at most for what he did which tells me 2 things, one, he fucked up by just not manning up and serving the 8 months and getting it over with, and two, such a short sentence for what he allegedly did tells me that the evidence may not have been as solid as some seem to indicate.


I also think in a case like this, absent any evidence of threats or fear, if the victim doesnt wish to further pursue the case then it should be dropped.

Last, for now, the victim did agree to a pretty nice monetary settlement of which Polanski eventually paid her in full, which some have said to be upwards of a million dollars.

More later.

I question whether or not it was a more liberal sexually tolerant society then. How many openly gay couples were there 30 years ago relative to how many there are now? I think society has made great strides recently in accepting behavior between conscenting adults. That is not what happend in Roman's case. She was 13. Society has also made great strides in how we protect children. In my mind that is why this case is more of a big deal NOW than it was THEN. The fact that a probation and psych eval report showed he should not serve time is not particularly significant to me. It was a recommendation. It may have been an informed and educated opinion but it was simply an opinion. The judge was not bound by it.As with any criminal case there are a wide range of opinions as to what an appropriate sentence should be. A proposed 8 month sentence for sex with 13 year old was a gift then or now. The fact that he paid the victim. Also irrelavent in my mind. He cannot buy his way out of criminal accountability. Roman fled the jursidiction of the court becuase he had the reasources to do so.
That said, my guess is that the US will continue to try to pursue and will never be able to accomplish anything.

I agree with Scott,no matter how much more sexually liberal society may have been,she was a child,no a consenting adult.I also don't think it should have anything to do with whether or not the victim wants to pursue this or not,the only thing that matters should be to make a point that no matter in what position you are socially you should be treated the same...if Polanski would have been a construction worker or truck driver or whatever ( you know what I mean) I think the public would think completely different about this and noone would think it should be "forgiven"....I don't care how many millions he gave her or or how much she thinks she's ok now,first of all he has plenty of money that doesn't hurt him and second of all it's the principle...it's not ok to rape a 13 year old girl,never in my opinion....

Some unknown would not have been pursued like this at all. If he managed to get out of the country, no way would the US go after him for 30 years on this charge.

tapu wrote:Some unknown would not have been pursued like this at all. If he managed to get out of the country, no way would the US go after him for 30 years on this charge.

Romans status plays several roles here.
It gave him the reasources to leave the country realtively easily and transplant his life with minimal disruption. Would he have preferred to stay in the USA? Probably. But overall, I don't think life in Europe has been very differnt for him than it would have been here. He still makes movies and lives well. He is not a prisoner in any sense. I do think that his status played a role in the original sentence and ONLY helped him. Again 8 months for the rape of a 13 year old????? I doubt that would have been available to an average offender. I wonder if the psych eval would have been different for an average offender. Would it have been simply poor judgment if Bob the school janitor had done this?
I do however agree with Tapu that if someone that was totally unknown had fled and gotten away for 30+ years in all likelyhood everyone would have forgotten. His status is a constant reminder to everyone that he got away with it. He as the convicted offender dictated the terms of his own punishment. 40whatever days was okay with him, 8 months was not so ... he left.

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/07/newport-news-man-gets-8-years-child-porn?cid=rltd
To illustrate a change in social norms / move socially to be more protective of children read this article. This man received 8 years for possession of images while Roman was to receive 8 mths for an actual rape.

...but even if the "unknown" offender was to have fled to another country,there'sno way that country would protect him and not work with US authoritys.
Polanski's sense of entitlement enfuriates me."Everyone likes to fuck young girls"
That's his statement,his excuse...even if that was true,not everyone does.
He has no regret ,no sense that he did something wrong at all...
which makes me sure this was not the only victim.
Can you imagine how that child felt,when someone important took her pictures,I'm sure she felt special and proud that this guy was interested in her....and then he turned her into a high paid whore....He altered someone's psyche forever,no one has a right to do that....