Roman Polanski.............

[Magix]

Wow... I'm really saddened to see that great filmmakers like Martin Scorsese, John Landis, Wess Anderson and Terry Gilliam are on that petition. I understand they don't want to see a fellow filmmaker go down, but the fact is he committed a crime and should receive just punishment for it. I read through some of the girl's original testimony in the L.A. Times this morning... what he did was outright wrong and he should serve his time. If it happened to their own daughters, I expect those who signed the petition would feel much differently on the subject.

 

[Deb in IA]

Frankly, I don't care who signs the petition.

He raped her.

It was not "consensual" as a 13 year old is not deemed of the age of consent.

He may be a talented director, but he is a vile, evil man, and needs to be punished to the extent of the law for his crime.

 

[Briarmom]

Two questions:

1. I really thought Whoopie was saying it wasn't "rape" rape, meaning there was no violence used I think. A few posters said she was talking to someone in her earwire. Help me understand, because I really like Whoopie----wasn't she going back and forth with Sheri where Sheri said any sex with a 13 year old by an adult is rape? Where did the words "not "rape" rape' come from? Who in her ear was talking to her?? If Whoopie was describing the charge, did she say it wasn't "rape" rape because he was charged with unlawful sex with a minor? And if so, why, I wonder, was that the charge, and not plain old rape???

I've watched the youtube clips trying to find one that hasn't been 'clipped' to make Whoopi look bad, but there isn't one. Some of them from certain 'groups' have really been enlightening.

What Whoopi got in the earpiece later was that the charge was 'Sex with a Minor' (I think...I can't remember exactly) so right before that clip the other co-hosts are saying 'Roman Polansky was charged with rape and...' and Whoopi says 'but it wasn't rape rape...' and then they go on talking over each other saying all the names it could possibly be before Whoop gets the facts from the producer or whoever.

Clear as mud?

 

[disykat]

Doesn't being charged with "rape by use of drugs" mean he was charged with rape?
If yes, then Whoopi stated the issues incorrectly, because she said he wasn't charged with rape. Since she was going on about how it is important to have the facts correct, she should have stated them correctly. That's all I'm saying.

And what I'm saying, is that Whoopie was a talk show host who was just having and conversation around a topic and trying to figure things out in the midst of that conversation. She was not stating facts as if she had them correct.

Talk show hosts aren't delivering hard news, and she wasn't presenting it as such, she was just having a conversation. Part of her conversation was in fact about how she didn't want to misrepresent facts and how they should be careful not to do so.

 

[Aisling]

What Whoopi got in the earpiece later was that the charge was 'Sex with a Minor' (I think...I can't remember exactly) so right before that clip the other co-hosts are saying 'Roman Polansky was charged with rape and...' and Whoopi says 'but it wasn't rape rape...' and then they go on talking over each other saying all the names it could possibly be before Whoop gets the facts from the producer or whoever.

Clear as mud?

YES Now I got it Phew, I thought I was dense or something.

 

[CaliforniaDreamin]

I've watched the youtube clips trying to find one that hasn't been 'clipped' to make Whoopi look bad, but there isn't one. Some of them from certain 'groups' have really been enlightening.

What Whoopi got in the earpiece later was that the charge was 'Sex with a Minor' (I think...I can't remember exactly) so right before that clip the other co-hosts are saying 'Roman Polansky was charged with rape and...' and Whoopi says 'but it wasn't rape rape...' and then they go on talking over each other saying all the names it could possibly be before Whoop gets the facts from the producer or whoever.

Clear as mud?

What he is charged with differs from what he did. He is not above the law. I don't care if the victim has "gotten over it". This man is a child molester, plain and simple. No defense. He may not be charged with "rape" rate, but thats what he did. I think plea bargins should be abolished.

 

[The Orchid]

Leaving age and drugs out of it, the victim said she "forgave" Polanski. Generally, people don't forgive others unless something wrong was done to them. The fact that she "forgave" him seems to imply to me that SHE thought he did something bad to her. She doesn't seem to find the encounter consensual.

But as others have said, even if she did "consent" she is 13 years old and under the influence of drugs and alcohol...three reasons why she can't give consent.

As for this being the "norm" in Europe, I have several European friends who are rather irate at that! It's true that their teens mature faster than ours and are given more freedoms, but 13 year olds on drugs having sex with 45 year old men? Ummmm, no. At least not in any of the countries my friends live in.

And I have one more thing to say about this...the victim's mother is a bloody moron. What ever happened to parents protecting their children? I can't stand those stage mothers that want fame and money for their children more than their child's emotional and physical well being.

 

[CowboyCO]

What was Polanski CHARGED with? Sex with a minor is what he copped a plea for (which he never was sentenced for).

These were the charges handed down in the idictment from the Grand Jury:


1. Furnishing a controlled substance to a minor. (Qualudes)

2. Lewd or Lascivious Act on a Child Under 14

3. Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Child.

4. Rape by Use of Drugs.

5. Sexual Perversion (Sex act on a minor)

6. Sodomy on a Person.

Read the grand jury testimony and the indictment. If you feel like puking. This pervert needs to be locked away for the rest of his life. Since he jumped bail before being sentence or the plea being accepted, they can re-file for all six counts he was indicted for. I hope they do!

 

[manning]

As justification for his dispicable acts, I've heard people on TV saying "It was consensual, it wasn't rape." Now, I have to say that I've not looked into it more, so I don't know if it was consensual or not, BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT!! There is a very good reason we have laws on the books about statutory rape. A 13-year old, in my mind, cannot give consent to a man in his 40s. The whole thing just makes me sick.

Ya right.

At age 13 she cannot legally give consent.

No one can give consent if they are drugged and boozed up.

Dennis Miller on the factor today when asked said considering he would have little time to serve then go after a big money settlement. He said he read the testimony transcript of the trial and changed his mind and said he should serve time as the crime was brutal!!!

Everyone should read the testimony.

 

[manning]

He should be brought back to the states and should receive a fair trial. He drugged the girl, raped her, and then ran away. He absolutely should not be allowed to get away without being punished criminally. Of course, Woody Allen doesn't think there's anything wrong with what he did and Whoopi Goldberg is a nutcase.

He was already convicted. He admitted it. He skipped before he was sentenced.

 

[disneybound2010]

I found this interview with the victim from 2003. She was on Larry King Live. From what she stated, the sexual relations were NOT consensual.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/24/lkl.00.html

 

[Briarmom]

What he is charged with differs from what he did. He is not above the law. I don't care if the victim has "gotten over it". This man is a child molester, plain and simple. No defense. He may not be charged with "rape" rate, but thats what he did. I think plea bargins should be abolished.

What the hell? I never once said he shouldn't be punished to the full extent of the law. I was just clarifying what Ms Goldberg said.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Frankly, I don't care who signs the petition.

He raped her.

It was not "consensual" as a 13 year old is not deemed of the age of consent.

He may be a talented director, but he is a vile, evil man, and needs to be punished to the extent of the law for his crime.

Agreed. No one should be above the law.

 

[PixieDust32]

They should arrest all those nasty catholic priest that had raped kids too, but nothing happened to them, they just moved them to another place and covered it up!

 

[JerseyJanice]

After reading her testimony, I don't blame the victim at all for not wanting to pursue the case further. I'm sure she doesn't want to relive that night or have her family exposed to the infamy.

I know I've read things about Mr. Polanski that did not describe him as a nice guy at all, yet his former sister-in-law, Debra Tate, is sticking up for him:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/33086200#33086200

It bothers me that she's saying he couldn't get a fair trial. On what is she basing that opinion? Her sister's killers have been kept in jail all these years, so I don't understand why she's bashing the California justice system.

 

[PixieDust32]

Who in the right mind defends a guy that rape a 13 year old girl? I don't care if it was yesterday or 50 years ago, it was a horrible act.

 

[Acklander]

I don't care if it was yesterday or 50 years ago, it was a horrible act.

You may not care if it was yesterday or 50 years ago, but I believe the statute of limitations of rape is only like 7 years (I could be wrong on the amount, but there is a definite time frame). So he couldn't be charged with rape this late in the game. Now, being a fugative of justice doesn't have a time limit, so he can be charged with that.

 

[Boston Tea Party]

I don't see the outrage. It happened 32 years ago, the "girl" is now 45 years old and received an undisclosed settlement amount at the time. I believe I read an article a few days ago when this story broke where even she says "for heavens sake, just drop it!!"

It's obvious that Roman Polanski hasn't been out there raping other girls or the news would have surfaced by now. He obviously isn't a danger to society and the only ones screaming for blood are the ones who are typically screaming for blood no matter who's face is on the front of the paper.

This case should be closed and the resources that are being wasted trying to "get" Roman Polanski should put to better use.

 

[PixieDust32]

It doesn't matter he raped a girl and never paid for his crime. I understand the law and the statute of limitations i was talking about people defending him.

 

[allison443]

You may not care if it was yesterday or 50 years ago, but I believe the statute of limitations of rape is only like 7 years (I could be wrong on the amount, but there is a definite time frame). So he couldn't be charged with rape this late in the game. Now, being a fugative of justice doesn't have a time limit, so he can be charged with that.

He was timely charged in 1977 back when it happened. Those charges have never gone away because he chose to flee. As recently as this summer, Polanski's lawyers made a motion to have the pending charges dismissed. The motion was denied. The charges are still pending against him.