Roman Polanski arrested in child sex case

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Roman Polanski arrested in child sex case

Postby operator kos » Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:59 am

My RigInt sense is just tingling, with all of the parapolitical madness swirling around this man, from the Manson thing to some of his movies, to this arrest in Switzerland for having sex with a 13-year-old in 1977.

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=433487&GT1=28101

ZURICH (AP) -- Director Roman Polanski was arrested by Swiss police for possible extradition to the United States for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl, authorities said Sunday.

Polanski was flying in to receive an honorary award at the Zurich Film Festival when he was apprehended Saturday at the airport, the Swiss Justice Ministry said in a statement. It said U.S. authorities have sought the arrest of the 76-year-old around the world since 2005.

"There was a valid arrest request and we knew when he was coming," ministry spokesman Guido Balmer told The Associated Press. "That's why he was taken into custody."

Balmer said the U.S. would now be given time to make a formal extradition request.

Polanski fled the U.S. in 1978, a year after pleading guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with the underage girl.

The director of such classic films as "Chinatown" and "Rosemary's Baby" has asked a U.S. appeals court in California to overturn a judges' refusal to throw out his case. He claims misconduct by the now-deceased judge who had arranged a plea bargain and then reneged on it.

The Swiss statement said Polanski was officially in "provisional detention for extradition," but added that he would not be transferred to U.S. authorities until all proceedings are completed. Polanski can contest his detention and any extradition decision in the Swiss courts, it said.
Search: Roman Polanski
View results for:

Polanski has faced a U.S. arrest request since 1978 and has lived for the past three decades in France, where his career has continued to flourish. He received a directing Oscar in absentia for the 2002 movie "The Pianist." He was not extradited from France because his crime reportedly was not covered under the U.S.'s treaties with the country.

In France, Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand said he was "dumbfounded" by Polanski's arrest, adding that he "strongly regrets that a new ordeal is being inflicted on someone who has already experienced so many of them."

Mitterrand's ministry said Sunday in a statement that he is in contact with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, "who is following the case with great attention and shares the minister's hope that the situation can be quickly resolved."

A native of France who was taken to Poland by his parents, Polanski escaped Krakow's Jewish ghetto as a child and lived off the charity of strangers. His mother died at the Auschwitz Nazi death camp.

He worked his way into filmmaking in Poland, gaining an Oscar nomination for best foreign-language film in 1964 for his "Knife in the Water." Offered entry to Hollywood, he directed the classic "Rosemary's Baby" in 1968.

But his life was shattered again in 1969 when his wife, actress Sharon Tate, and four other people were gruesomely murdered by followers of Charles Manson. She was eight months pregnant.

He went on to make another American classic, "Chinatown," released in 1974.

In 1977, he was accused of raping the teenager while photographing her during a modeling session. The girl said Polanski plied her with champagne and part of a Quaalude pill at Jack Nicholson's house while the actor was away. She said that, despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her.

Polanski was allowed to plead guilty to one of six charges, unlawful sexual intercourse, and was sent to prison for 42 days of evaluation.

Lawyers agreed that would be his full sentence, but the judge tried to renege on the plea bargain. Aware the judge would sentence him to more prison time and require his voluntary deportation, Polanski fled to France.

The victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself publicly, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over. She sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement.

Festival organizers said Polanski's detention had caused "shock and dismay," but that they would go ahead with Sunday's planned retrospective of the director's work.

The Swiss Directors Association sharply criticized authorities for what it deemed "not only a grotesque farce of justice, but also an immense cultural scandal."
User avatar
operator kos
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

grotesque farces

Postby kristinerosemary » Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:07 pm

can anyone believe the intense waste of
time energy and money in pursuit of this
absurdity? them at the top of the food
chain must be devil worshippers still
teed off about something roman did in
'rosemary's baby' back when. real hard
to believe they're actually after him for
this actual thing they allege.
kristinerosemary
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby jingofever » Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:16 pm

The AP Publishes Internal Notes About Roman Polanski Arrest As News Story:

OK, can you do some more probing? New York will want to know

frank's out today.

i checked already, and so did zurich. they say the question is irrelevant. he answered me with the quote i used, about we knew when he was coming this time. he's been here many times in the past, we think.

thx brad. aptn is aware, but unfortunately won't make it in time, but is hoping to catch tail end.

i'm pushing out another writethru with some more background details before press conference.

no surprise, new york is really hot on this.

they particularly want to know why now. (has he never set foot in switzerland before?) sheila, theorizes that's because they're under intense pressure over ubs and want to throw the U.S. a bone, but can yo ucheck with justice department sources there?

is frank around too, or are you alone?

u can tell aptn press conf 1700 (15 gmt) in bern at the parliament

i'll watch it live on internet


Interesting speculation by Sheila. Did the "top of the food chain" pressure the Swiss to hand over Polanski? I guess Roman doesn't have an account with them.
User avatar
jingofever
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby monster » Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:23 pm

If he did it, he should go to prison.
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
User avatar
monster
 
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:55 pm
Location: Everywhere
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby SonicG » Sun Sep 27, 2009 8:27 pm

I seem to remember Polanski's claim was that he didn't know she was that young (maybe) and that it was all consensual. The mother got involved in it later and pushed for charges. Vague memory from reading his fascinating autiobio. many years back but I'm sure his version could be dug up on the web. Interesting how this happens right after Susan Atkins died...

ETA: This docu. film came out last year. Apparently the judge really pushed the case also:

It’s an methodical but irreverant look at the legal quagmire and media scandal and that erupted in 1977, after a 13 year old girl accused Polanski of raping her in Jack Nicholson’s hottub whilst taking topless photos of her for Men’s Vogue. Polanski admitted to having intercourse with the girl, but said it was consensual; the film tracks how Polanski’s plea on a lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor was mutated by media-hungry Judge Rittenband, ultimately causing Polanski to flee to France in fear of being sentenced to half a century in prison.

Zenovich sets up Rittenband and Polanski as polar opposites in the realm of media-mediated justice. Polanski, a public figure due to his profession but a media star due to a combination of charisma, bad luck, and his admitted personal “recklessness,” is forced to face the reality that even in the anything-goes swirl of Hollywood in the 70s, absolute free will is an impossibility of public life. Meanwhile, hungry for his own taste of media attention, Rittenband drifted towards celebrity court cases (he previously chose to officiate Elvis’ divorce), and allowed his obsession with controlling his own media image to dictate his rulings. Ironically, Rittenband’s push for glory directly led to Polanski fleeing to France, where he was able to escape not just jail time, but the gaze of an unsympathetic media.
"a poiminint tidal wave in a notion of dynamite"
User avatar
SonicG
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Nordic » Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:37 am

It's weird, this at the same time as the MacKenzie Phillips story, about having sex with her Dad when she was a kid.

These things always comes in threes, and that's two. What's next?
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Postby daba64 » Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:01 pm

He didn't know she was that young? How old did he think she was -- 18? Somehow I doubt it.

It was consensual? A child is not legally capable of giving consent.

Her mother "got involved in it later and pushed for charges"? Yes, I bet she did. If someone drugged and raped my child, I would get involved and push for charges too. In fact, if I could get my hands on the pervert for 5 minutes, he'd pray for mere "charges."

The judge "really pushed the case"? For fuck's sake, why wouldn't the judge push it? ROMAN POLANSKI DRUGGED AND RAPED A 13 YEAR OLD. He admitted he did it. He's guilty. Not because he's famous -- because he's guilty. And "it was the 70s" is not a defense. Even in the 70s, it was still illegal to drug and rape a 13 year old.

Fear of being sentenced "caused him to flee to France"? Yes, it was the judge's fault that he fled. He made him flee! He's a fucking criminal and he fled the country to avoid punishment. On what planet is that okay?

Taking topless photos of a 13 year old girl is illegal. Giving alcohol and quaaludes to a child is illegal. The guy is a child molester. He admits it! Why are we giving him a pass? Because he directed "Chinatown?" FUCK HIM. He should die in prison.
daba64
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 3:49 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby StarmanSkye » Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:55 pm

Not to defend what Polanski did, as confirmed by his guilty plea, conviction and confession, 'it was consensual.' The girl claimed he took advantage of her and forced her. Cripes, plying her with booze and 'Ludes and then jumping her bones. That's inexcusable.

But why does the mother get a pass? What kind of mom consents to having her very-young daughter photographed topless for what are clearly titlating, sexualized images? One who is probably more concerned with exploiting her daughter, or at the very least allowing her daughter to be exploited for whatever advantage and gain, real or imagined, to her daughter and/or herself. And on top of that, the mom doesn't exercise ANY oversight protection, at the very least providing an on-site chapperone to forestall even the semblance of irresponsibility on the part of either photographer AND parent.
Wasn't there a betrayal by both Polanski and mother?

The girl, a mature woman now, has stated she would prefer the issue go-away, she doesn't want to reintroduce old memories and hurts. Should her wishes have any weight?

On the other hand, the state DOES have an obligation to apply the law impartially, removing the spectre of victim intimidation by a perp to compel the dropping of charges thereby insures extraneous circumstances don't influence or subvert the intent of justice and equality before the law (admittedly an ideal not infrequently breached by elites with status, connections/power & wealth).

And: Do (or should) the ulterior motives of Justice Dept. individuals who have a personal agenda have any bearing on Polanski's being held to account now, after 30+ years? I mean, of all the serious crimes being overlooked, ignored, covered-up, excused or trivialized committed by powerful business, civil service and political individuals that have far more immediate impact on our society, why go after Polanski for justice deferred? I mean, I know (probably) why -- it makes them look good, competant, stand-up responsible, and so forth. But if it's a cheapshot self-promotion, typical of an aspirant for a higher rung of political office?

No, I guess that really can't be allowed to interfere in whether a suspect is tried. Unfortunately, that's an aspect of the politicization of judiciary which can't easily be avoided. I guess it comes with the territory.
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby kristinerosemary » Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:04 pm

well, the big roundup better start then, because what this guy did to that kid is show business as usual and whoever doesn't like it should boycott all movies that hired people under the age of consent because very few of them ever consented to the exploitation very few ever escape.

on edit: of course i'm no expert and going to
hollywood high school doesnt make me one.
carry on.
kristinerosemary
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby yathrib » Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:02 pm

If you've seen the photo of the child he was involved with, she was just that. A child. A little girl. Roman Polanski is a child molester. Case closed.
yathrib
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby OP ED » Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:26 pm

kristinerosemary wrote:well, the big roundup better start then, because what this guy did to that kid is show business as usual and whoever doesn't like it should boycott all movies that hired people under the age of consent because very few of them ever consented to the exploitation very few ever escape.


nonsensical apples v. oranges.

most directors don't give children drugs and alcohol and take topless photos of them. you know, cause those things are illegal.

which is not to mention the whole rape thing.
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby kristinerosemary » Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:56 pm

argument conceded to the experts.
kristinerosemary
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby bubblefunk » Mon Sep 28, 2009 6:03 pm

We have no say in the matter. This may be important to those involved, but it's a distraction to the rest of us. Our opinions are just opinions and saying "Case Closed" means absolutely nothing.
bubblefunk
 
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby OP ED » Mon Sep 28, 2009 6:08 pm

in another thread dealing with this issue someone suggested that if the "victim" wants it ended that it should be ended because the victim's wishes are paramount.

but it is not so simple. for my part, i'm not interested in vengeance morality when it comes to these crimes. i don't want Polanski locked up to "make him pay", because i don't think "paying" is a proper goal, nor does it ever actually work that way. I want him locked up so he doesn't rape another teenager.
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Maddy » Mon Sep 28, 2009 6:24 pm

I suggested that, because of how difficult it is, as a victim of abuse, to go through all of the legal, emotional and psychological hardships involved in a court case. I can imagine one this public would be even harsher. Then, once you've already gone through it once, and I would assume (or at least hope) have done the therapy involved, perhaps come to some kind of peace, then to have it dredged up to do all over again, years later. I agree, he needs to be put away for the good of his many possible victims. If there's a way to do this and still consider the woman involved and her desires and emotional/psychological health, then awesome. Otherwise she's being revictimized and we're walking on a wire here between the good of one, and the potential good of possibly many.

You don't want to hear my opinions about what should happen to men (or women) like him. They aren't PC. At all.
Be kind - it costs nothing. ~ Maddy ~
User avatar
Maddy
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:33 am
Location: The Borderlands
Blog: View Blog (0)
Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 154 guests