Roman Polanski arrested in child sex case

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby OP ED » Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:08 am

my opinions never touched on age, as far as i can recall, anyway.

personally, i spent most of the time after age thirteen actively pursuing sex, sometimes with people significantly older than me.

that really has little to do with my personal problems with Mr. Polanski's conduct.

I think you 26-ish-year-olds may be applying the should-have-known-better expectations of the present to events that took place when people should indeed have known better every bit as much as they always should have. But however unfortunate it may have been for lots of adolescent girls and lots of adult men, they simply didn't. Realistically speaking. So he really might not have known that it was an actual and absolute serious transgression in the same way that a guy in his forties today really couldn't help but know.


i think after the third or fourth time she said "no" that he very much should have realized it was an absolute and serious transgression, so yes, clearly we disagree?

maybe you meant something else?
Last edited by OP ED on Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Maddy » Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:09 pm

C2W? : she said "No". Each and every time she said, "No." I don't care if she was 13, 33 or 83, she said, "No." (Okay, I lie, I do care that she was 13, but the point still stands, she said, "No.") In no one's world, yours as a teenager in the 60s, mine as a teenager in the 80s, or now as a teenager, does saying, "No," validate a 40 year old man (or a 14 year old man, or a 84 year old man) continuing to have sex with a 13, 33 or 83 year old woman.

On the subject of different morals, there were also different morals in the 80s, and that line was still thin, so I understand what you mean. And in retrospect, things should have been different in many lives in the past (re: young girls, or boys, w adult men or women) because young, hormone driven girls (or boys!) still aren't emotionally capable of making that decision and dealing with the emotional/psychological consequences. But I know what you're talking about with that. I'm glad morals have changed and that 26 year olds can be outraged like they hadn't been before. :D
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)

Postby IanEye » Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:12 pm

smallprint wrote:IanEye and I just got into a virtual tussle because he apparently thought I was some raging RW teabagger coming in to raid this site. Why? Because I attacked Roman Polanski, a convicted rapist! Since when does defending a child rapist become "Left Wing", and defending a rape victim "Right Wing"? This whole thing is bizarre. There is a massive disconnect between the elite and the rest of us, and they are trying to create an idiotic, artificial Left/Right division on this issue.


Hi, smallprint. I don't know the first thing about you or who you are out there in the 'real world'.

I can only tell you that I have had my own struggles with anger management, and the personal regrets that tend to linger the longest for me are when I have severely misplaced my anger.

I have no desire to place you within a left/right paradigm, but it is fair to say that your anger did remind me of the town hall events of this past August.

If you choose to zoom out to a societal level, I think you have every right to express a certain amount of anger at Mr. Polanski's actions. But your expressions seemed more personal, and I see now in your comments to barracuda that you have someone close to you who was raped at a young age.

This must fill you with rage, and I am willing to listen to you express that rage, as long as it is aimed directly at the person who committed this act against your loved one. But it appeared to me that you were using Mr. Polanski as a proxy for that rage and I don't think that is healthy.

I recognize the irony of the fact that Mr. Polanski is an all too obvious example of someone who, filled with justifiable anger, directed it at people who in no way deserved to be on the receiving end of his rage.

Mr. Polanski let himself be consumed by his emotions, and his art did not purify him, nor does it excuse his actions.

You had asked who cares if you come here to vent. Well, I care.

If your motives seem honest in why you are venting, I am willing to listen, as are many others. But I have had any number of odd moments here where people's motives take on an odd tinge, and I find no fault in questioning the placement of their emotions.

TheDuke wrote:Perhaps that was a bit harsh but for me personally it's a terrible feeling to scroll down and see IanEye as the next poster and know the thread is gonna be ruined by some inane lyric or album cover that he thinks is relevant. It's the equivalent of message board karaoke.

The same guy has a thread called Eye Heart Vagina in the Lounge which makes me suspect he doesn't the chance to Heart the real thing very often.


One of the things that was the primary draw for me to come to Rigorous Intuition was how when Jeff had a new blog post, he always had a cool photoshop montage, and some lyrics to a song, usually a Dylan song. There are any number of blogs that cover the paranormal as well as the parapolitical, but for me, this image/lyrics aspect is what 'tied the post together' to paraphrase The Dude.

Perhaps I am alone in being attracted to this aspect of Rigorous Intuition. Or, perhaps you enjoy it too, but think I do a terrible job of it, whereas Jeff is great at it.

If someone takes the time to write out a post describing to the board their personal struggle with cancer, and my response is to post some Jimmy Buffett lyrics and a Ziggy cartoon, well, I can imagine any number of people taking offense to that.

I tend to approach it a little differently if all someone has done is gone to another website, hit control-a on their computer, then comes here and hits control-v. It's just not the same as the previous example, however much the article they have chosen to cut and paste resonates with them. Unless they have also taken the time to add a personal account of why they like the article someone else has written, I am not going to feel guilty about taking the same approach towards making a cut&paste response.

I remember when Coolio got all bent out of shape because Weird Al Yankovic had appropriated 'Gangster's Paradise' and turned it into 'Amish Paradise'.
Coolio's righteous indignation over this would have carried a lot more weight if he himself had not appropriated Stevie Wonder's 'Pastime Paradise'. As it was, he just came across looking like a jealous asshole.

I am more than happy to be the Weird Al in this equation.

As far as my 'V' thread in the Lounge goes, it is my understanding that the rules are different in the Lounge, and most posters wouldn't want their actions in there to be held as a standard for their presence in the General Discussion room.

I have no shame over starting the thread, and I have no shame for when I chose to have the Mods lock the thread.

I think the thread stands on it's own.
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4865
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Postby RocketMan » Wed Sep 30, 2009 6:35 pm

Being a movie buff, I've always compulsively pushed the issue of the rape in the background... But the Orwell essay really made the pieces finally fit. Got to get a book of Orwell essays, they go down well.

Is there any evidence of Polanski indulging his predilection in later years?
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby barracuda » Wed Sep 30, 2009 6:49 pm

But Rocketman, Orwell is not saying that Dali's despicable lack of humanity diminishes the brilliance and power of his painting. He's saying that the brilliance and power of his painting doesn't somehow justify or excuse his lack of humanity. Nobody gets a free pass due to genius.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:06 pm

OP ED wrote:my opinions never touched on age, as far as i can recall, anyway.

personally, i spent most of the time after age thirteen actively pursuing sex, sometimes with people significantly older than me.

that really has little to do with my personal problems with Mr. Polanski's conduct.

I think you 26-ish-year-olds may be applying the should-have-known-better expectations of the present to events that took place when people should indeed have known better every bit as much as they always should have. But however unfortunate it may have been for lots of adolescent girls and lots of adult men, they simply didn't. Realistically speaking. So he really might not have known that it was an actual and absolute serious transgression in the same way that a guy in his forties today really couldn't help but know.


i think after the third or fourth time she said "no" that he very much should have realized it was an absolute and serious transgression, so yes, clearly we disagree?

maybe you meant something else?


No, not really. Nor do we clearly disagree. After the third or fourth time she said no, he very much should have realized that it was an absolute and serious transgression. Because that's what it was. I just don't find it impossible to believe that he didn't realize what he very much should have realized. I base that on personal experience and observation of roughly similar events at much the same time. I don't think and am not trying to argue that the possibility that he didn't realize what he should have realized makes his transgression any less serious or any less absolute. On the contrary, I aver that it does not.

I was merely floating the suggestion that the serious and absolute transgression he committed -- which also happens to be a crime for which I'd say there's no question that he seriously and absolutely ought to pay the penalty that both morality and the law require him to pay -- might not be as much of an indicator that he has the kind of serious and absolute vicious criminal and/or moral inclinations in any chronic or characterological sense that were being attributed to him. I don't know whether he does or doesn't, and don't claim to know whether he does or doesn't. For what very little it's worth, I have the vague impression that while he's an arrogant and unrepentant asshole, he is not a vicious or dangerous predator. None of which affects my agreement with you either wrt the serious and absolute nature of the transgression, or the categorical imperative both to call it one and treat it like one. In short, we are as one in every respect when it comes to the crime.

When it comes to what opinion we hold of the criminal, we probably differ slightly. However, if so, my divergent opinion is neither very strongly held by me nor is it at all a relevant factor wrt his criminal guilt or my unqualified belief that he is, in a fucking nutshell, criminally guilty. It's a somewhat relevant contributing factor wrt my overall understanding of people, the world they live in, the extent to which their beliefs about it sometimes combine to influence their actions and opinions for the worse, and why and how that happens when it does. But as I said, I'm not at all sure that I rightly understand those things. And I know for damn certain that I only ever understand any given particular thing subjectively. At best. In this particular case, when I read the words...

    ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No’, and then I didn’t know what else to do,” she said in an interview. “We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this.”

....it strongly influences my subjective understanding of them that I hear them as being spoken in my own voice. Which, in turn, strongly influences my subjective understanding of the potential range of circumstances, feelings, motivations, and forces that might or might not have been in play when they were actually spoken, in reality, by someone else. Operating on the general principle that my personal perspective might in some way stimulate or otherwise generally enhance the subjective understanding of other people in the same way that the personal perspectives of other people sometimes stimulate and enhance mine, I offer it for that purpose. In the event that it doesn't serve that purpose, feel free to disregard it. It's not any big thing. It's just little old me, and my subjective understanding, out here adding ourselves to the teeming throngs. No more. No less.

Maddy wrote:C2W? : she said "No". Each and every time she said, "No." I don't care if she was 13, 33 or 83, she said, "No." (Okay, I lie, I do care that she was 13, but the point still stands, she said, "No.") In no one's world, yours as a teenager in the 60s, mine as a teenager in the 80s, or now as a teenager, does saying, "No," validate a 40 year old man (or a 14 year old man, or a 84 year old man) continuing to have sex with a 13, 33 or 83 year old woman.


I agree. I was a teenager in the '70s, though.

On the subject of different morals, there were also different morals in the 80s, and that line was still thin, so I understand what you mean. And in retrospect, things should have been different in many lives in the past (re: young girls, or boys, w adult men or women) because young, hormone driven girls (or boys!) still aren't emotionally capable of making that decision and dealing with the emotional/psychological consequences. But I know what you're talking about with that. I'm glad morals have changed and that 26 year olds can be outraged like they hadn't been before. :D


I not only agree, I actually said that very thing, and then cut it due to a wish to keep the rambling within reasonable parameters. FWIW, though, that's exactly what I was thinking when I said times had changed for the better. Also, fwiw, I remember the sexual mores of the '80s pretty well too. I was born in 1960, so my youthful sexual experiences as they occurred more or less on schedule happened naturally to occur during parts of both decades. And neither was any fucking picnic. So to speak. There are some things that are no better now than they've ever been, and show no sign of ever being, as far as I can tell. However, for some demographics especially, there are also things that have just improved out of all sight and mind. Which makes me very happy. There's pretty much nothing that could make me happier, really.
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Maddy » Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:56 pm

:D

Also sorry about the 10 year aging! :oops: :wink:
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)

Postby lightningBugout » Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:59 pm

Kind of a paradox.

Sexual assault is always a serious crime.

But when the US government goes out of its way, to the point of extradition, to try and prosecute a 30 yo crime in which 1) there has been a civil suit and 2) the victim's wishes to let it go are ignored, how can you all muster up the emotional investment to get incensed about it when 1) it is a spectacle pure and simple in a political and media culture where we all know that means something else is probably being covered up and 2) the strong arm of the law in this country has so recently (thinking of the Bryant book) been shown to be definitely complicit in industrial grade child abuse.

This is a distraction plain and simple. No different than the average lone psychopath perp Fox turns into a household name for weeks at a time rather than report on anything of substance.

Would it be completely mad to speculate this may be related to Nick Bryant's book splashing in the collective pond?
"What's robbing a bank compared with founding a bank?" Bertolt Brecht
User avatar
lightningBugout
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby blanc » Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:56 am

The timing is wrong in every way - he should have been called to account as soon as practically possible after the offence. Still doesn't mean he shouldn't be prosecuted.Events of a tragic nature in his past might be evoked by his defense as mitigating circs in sentencing, but don't properly feature in a decision about whether or not to prosecute a rapist. Incidentally, what rapist of underage children does not claim consent was given?
As for the question of weighing up the good contributions an individual has made or is making, that also doesn't have any relevance. What if a rapist is an oncologist for example?
Money he paid to the victim? So he's rich enough to try to buy his way out of trouble. Or do we charitably assume its remorse and reparation.
blanc
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:00 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby justdrew » Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:22 am

I'd like to know more about this photo shoot. Who arranged it? How? Did the judge end up with the pictures? Men's Vogue was going to publish topless pics of a 13 year old? Was a modeling agency involved?

The long delay in any apparent effort to collect the fugitive is the primary reason so many have been willing to sweep this under the rug and come to less than realistic un-just expectations about his not needing to be sentenced and pay for the crime, to which he had plead guilty IIRC.

In the end it'll be best for him to just go and take his lumps. Hopefully he'll call his lawyers off and go face the music.
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Postby Pierre d'Achoppement » Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:46 am

Good questions, justdrew. Meanwhile, the plot thickens even more with this piece of news now in the news:

Tate Modern pop art exhibit pulls photo of nude 10-year-old Brooke Shields
BY Neil Nagraj
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, September 30th 2009, 5:59 AM

An exhibition at the Tate Modern will feature a photograph of a nude ten-year-old Brooke Shields alongside sexually explicit pop art - a decision akin to rolling out a welcome mat for perverts, outraged critics charge.

The inclusion of Richard Price's 1983 work 'Spiritual America' in the internationally-renowned London museum's exhibit "Pop Life, Art In A Material World," opening Thursday, has sparked the ire of both children's advocates and religious groups, London's Daily Mail reports.

"Putting a sign on the door like that means every pedophile in the land will head straight to that room," said Michele Elliott, founder of a children's charity called Kidscape, who has joined a chorus of voices calling for the exhibit's removal.

Price's 1983 image is actually a picture of an image taken in 1975 by artist Gary Cross. In it, a nude ten-year-old Brooke Shields, heavily made-up, stands in a bath staring at the camera.

Cross's photograph was taken after he hired Shields to be a model, allegedly with her mother's permission. Shields lost a 1981 court battle to purchase back the negatives, with a judge ruling the agreement between Cross and her mother was binding.

Officials at the Tate Modern sought legal advice prior to including the Price image in the exhibition, and will display it in a room alerting visitors to the piece's "challenging" nature.

"As with any artwork that contains challenging imagery, Tate has sought legal advice and evaluated the situation," a spokesman told the Daily Mail.

"Tate has taken measures to inform visitors of the nature of the work, providing information outlining the intentions of the artist."

The legality of the photo's inclusion failed to pacify some of the exhibit's critics.

"They took legal advice to see what they could get away with," Simon Calvert of The Christian Institute said. "Why didn't they take advice from ordinary parents and the public as to what's appropriate."

"I think that any parent of young girls would just be so shocked to hear that a tax-payer funded gallery thinks it is all right to show photographs of a nude ten-year-old in the middle of a pornography exhibition."

"Pop Life" claims to explore how "artists have mixed commerce and glamour to promote their public image," according to a statement on the Tate's website. It features works by a veritable who's who of pop artists, including pieces by Jeff Koons, Takashi Murakami, Keith Haring, and Andy Warhol.

The photograph "Spiritual America" appeared in New York at Guggenheim in 2007 in an exhibit by the same name.


http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainmen ... ern_p.html
User avatar
Pierre d'Achoppement
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby OP ED » Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:15 am

I just don't find it impossible to believe that he didn't realize what he very much should have realized.


well he certainly eventually realized it or he wouldn't have fled for France. Personally i find it disturbing that France doesn't seem to care very much about harbouring rapists(as long as they're arty and famous at least). but that is a seperate issue.



I was merely floating the suggestion that the serious and absolute transgression he committed -- which also happens to be a crime for which I'd say there's no question that he seriously and absolutely ought to pay the penalty that both morality and the law require him to pay -- might not be as much of an indicator that he has the kind of serious and absolute vicious criminal and/or moral inclinations in any chronic or characterological sense that were being attributed to him. I don't know whether he does or doesn't, and don't claim to know whether he does or doesn't. For what very little it's worth, I have the vague impression that while he's an arrogant and unrepentant asshole, he is not a vicious or dangerous predator.


i disagree. in fact, i'm pretty sure i completely disagree as far as this goes. Most of this is likely due to my lifelong hobby of going to sleep with a criminal survey study on my nightstand. for me the states of being an arrogant and unrepentant asshole about a violent and disturbing crime and being a vicious and dangerous predator aren't very much different. Because, you know, it was a dangerously vicious crime for which he is arrogantly unrepentant. still. after thirty years of reflection.

it sounds uncomfortably too much like an apologetic for crime, that somehow time makes him a less dangerous person, and this doesn't seem to match the reality of the world as i encounter it in criminal behavioral surveys. quite the opposite, in fact. as i nearly remarked in relation to RM's question:

Is there any evidence of Polanski indulging his predilection in later years?


to which my answer is: "no", or at least not that i know of. But i can tell you what the statistical odds of a rapist, supposing he is one for certain, is going to NOT do it again, statistically speaking that is. But the answer isn't very comforting. if he was an average rapist, and not special because he is arty or french, the odds are much better than half (about 65%-85%) that he's had another half dozen victims in the last thirty years. and that's a low-ball estimate based on DOJ averages.

(most rapists are repeat offenders from what we can tell)

lbo wrote:But when the US government goes out of its way, to the point of extradition, to try and prosecute a 30 yo crime in which 1) there has been a civil suit and 2) the victim's wishes to let it go are ignored, how can you all muster up the emotional investment to get incensed about it when 1) it is a spectacle pure and simple in a political and media culture where we all know that means something else is probably being covered up and 2) the strong arm of the law in this country has so recently (thinking of the Bryant book) been shown to be definitely complicit in industrial grade child abuse.


1. irrelevant (see above)
2. irrelevant (see above)

1. prove it. (see below)
2. no. Bryant's book establishes that some specific law enforcement agents are complicit, not that the vaguely defined abstract "law" is complicit. I'd suggest the average FBI agent has probably never heard of the Franklin case before, and if they have, it was in passing during their university days.

spectacle/timing:

prove it.

i've seen this mentioned several times, and as much as it may be true, i've not seen anyone establish ANY evidence to support such a claim.

does anyone have any evidence that RP has ever made himself vulnerable like this before?

That is: is there a record of him having previously left the country and travelled to a country which he could be extradited from, having given advance public warning that he was planning to do so?

i'd consider this a minimum to be able to establish the notion of timing in my head as being relevant at all. Otherwise i'm inclined to simply assume the best intentions on the part of the individual FBI types (and their Swiss counterparts) who arranged the pickup, and that timing in this case was more a matter of patience than anything else.

its easy to claim, and easy to believe considering we all WANT to assume the worst of the government agencies, but i find it striking that people want to give RP the benefit of doubt but aren't willing to extend the same benefit to career LEA.
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:03 am

i disagree. in fact, i'm pretty sure i completely disagree as far as this goes. Most of this is likely due to my lifelong hobby of going to sleep with a criminal survey study on my nightstand. for me the states of being an arrogant and unrepentant asshole about a violent and disturbing crime and being a vicious and dangerous predator aren't very much different. Because, you know, it was a dangerously vicious crime for which he is arrogantly unrepentant. still. after thirty years of reflection.

it sounds uncomfortably too much like an apologetic for crime, that somehow time makes him a less dangerous person, and this doesn't seem to match the reality of the world as i encounter it in criminal behavioral surveys. quite the opposite, in fact. as i nearly remarked in relation to RM's question:


No apologetic intended. None is possible, imo. The difference I'm talking about is a difference without a distinction in the context of the criminality of the act, or of the criminal. As a criminal. Regarded as a person, it makes a whispy degree of difference that isn't important to me, and isn't important, period. It was just a thought I had. Forget I ever mentioned it.
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby OP ED » Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:07 am

re: apologies: of course not. sorry if i had sounded like i thought you were making apologetics, as i certainly knew you weren't.

its just the sound of them (or even a similar sounding sound) gets under my skin, even though its quite common and i often react unthinkingly against the tone as i am used to hearing if not how it is actually intended in context.
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

fwiw

Postby hava1 » Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:38 am

L'affaire Polanski, rouvrira-t-elle les dossiers Coral et Zandvoort aux USA?
Thursday, October 1, 2009 1:05:49 PMFrom: Fond. Pcesses de Croÿ & M. Lancellotti <fondation.princesse.de.croy@droitfondamental.eu>Add to Contacts
To: Junior Tribune <junior-tribune@droitfondamental.eu>

2 Files Download All
Flag-France.png (27KB); Flag-UK.png (28KB)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 < %@LANGUAGE="JAVASCRIPT" CODEPAGE="65001"%>

Fondation Princesses de Croÿ & Massimo Lancellotti

Bruxelles, le 1er octobre 2009-
Version originale



L'affaire Polanski, rouvrira-t-elle les dossiers Coral et Zandvoort aux USA?

Polanski a photographié la nudité d’une enfant de 13 ans, avant qu’il ne la drogue et la sodomise, ce qui présume qu'il avait une de ces "collections" qualifiées de pédopornographie. Son comité de soutien comprend plusieurs personnalités mises en cause dans le réseau Coral, dont la collection de pédopornographie était vendue par le réseau de Zandvoort. Ces dossiers comportent les plus anciennes collections européennes de photos de crimes réels sur les enfants. Polanski était en France au moment du scandale Coral. Ses amis et leurs intérêts communs de pourraient inciter la justice Américaine a vérifier si la victime de Polanski figure aux cédéroms de Zandvoort.

L'affaire Polanski est le cas unique d’un scandale diplomatique pour prévenir l’extradition d’un pédocriminel aux Etats-Unis, parce qu'il a choisi de jouer au chat et à la souri pendant 32 ans avec la police américaine. Roman Polanski a été le fugitif le plus célèbre du monde, glorifié par la communauté artistique, avec une Palme d'Or à Cannes, trois Oscars et sept César. Il a voulu récolter le prix du Festival du film de Zurich pour l'ensemble de son œuvre. Il a été piégé à l’aéroport, dans la mesure où l’opération a été si secrète, que le pédo protectorat n’a pas pu l’aviser du danger, comme les fois précédentes.

A l’origine, Polanski devait répondre de viol et de sodomie d’une enfant de moins de 14 ans, en lui administrant du Quaalude, un hypnotique alors utilisé illégalement comme drogue récréative. L'affaire était d'autant plus choquante qu'elle s'est passée chez Jack Nicholson en son absence, mais quand son amie, Angelica Huston était dans la maison. L'actrice avait déclaré qu'elle ne croyait pas que Polanski était un mauvais homme, mais qu'il était un homme malheureux.

Polanski a eut le choix d'admettre des "relations sexuelles illégales", soit la version américaine du "détournement de mineur" européen, pour échapper à des charges beaucoup plus graves. C'était une faveur.

Polanski a été incarcéré 42 jours. A la veille du procès, le juge a dit aux avocats qu’il pensait le condamner à 48 jours de plus, donc 90 jours en tout. C’était une sentence sévère pour un détournant de mineur, mais insignifiante pour les faits réellement reprochés. Cela dépassait le prix que Polanski souhaitait payer pour son crime. Il a choisi la fuite. Le seul pays dont il ne risquait pas l’extradition était la France, qui lui avait attribué la nationalité française.

Polanski a vécu dans la gloire et la richesse. Sa victime a été persécutée par la presse, qui l’a présenté comme si elle avait consenti à se faire sodomiser à 13 ans. Polanski a réussi à la convaincre de retirer sa plainte. Elle ne veut plus en entendre parler. Elle est terrorisée par cette presse odieuse, qui la présente encore actuellement comme ayant été "séduite" par un homme, dont elle garde le souvenir d’un vieux dégoûtant.

La justice américaine répète depuis trente ans, qu’accorder l’impunité à un homme qui a drogué et violé une enfant de 13 ans serait une erreur judiciaire. La loi américaine, donc la volonté du peuple, reconnaît qu’un crime commis sur un de ses citoyens doit être traité comme s’il avait été commis sur tous ses citoyens. En sodomisant cette enfant, Polanski a sodomisé 300 millions d’américains.

Il y a également en ce concept, le respect d'une victime, qui peut être menacée (comme par la presse) pour retirer une plainte, dont elle n'a pas la capacité de juger sereinement. Si une photo de la victime de Polanski devait être retrouvée dans la collection Zandvoort, le jugement ne pourrait plus lui appartenir, car il appartient aussi à 88.539 autres victimes.

La Suisse a été sollicité d’appliquer ses accords d’extradition avec les USA. L’arrestation de Polanski a été suivie du traditionnel ouragan de protestations :

"L'arrestation du cinéaste Roman Polanski en Suisse est un "acte (qui) paraît inimaginable et disproportionné", selon Jack Lang, ex-ministre de la culture française qui espère "qu'une solidarité active s'organisera au cours des prochaines heures pour que la liberté soit rendue à ce grand créateur européen".

Ce réseau de solidarité a déjà épargné 340 personnalités dans l’affaire de pédophilie Coral en 1982, dont Jack Lang et un haut magistrat français identifié sur une photo avec un garçon de 11 ans, tout deux déculottés.

Ce réseau de solidarité s'active à chaque scandale qui implique un pédo dandy, pour expliquer que tous les pédo dandy sont victimes de violation de leurs droits fondamentaux et tous ceux qui les exposent sont des menteurs qui cherchent de la publicité. Le dernier qui a échappé au jugement dans l'affaire Coral et qui a bénéficié d'une deuxième campagne de cet ordre est Robert Mégel, finalement condamné à 12 ans de prison, pour des crimes que la justice Française condamne normalement par 20 ans de prison.

Le Werkgroep Morkhoven, ONG qui expose les branches belges et hollandaises de cette organisation criminelle depuis 1989, a découvert en 1998, le fichier Zandvoort où la branche française est apparue la première fois. La justice belge a mis 20 ans à piéger un membre fondateur de l'ONG : Marcel Vervloesem, afin de discréditer les preuves mettant les pédo dandy en cause.

Marcel Vervloesem a été condamné pour viol, malgré les certificats médicaux assurant qu’il était physiquement incapable de survivre à ce dont il était accusé, largement dépassé le délai raisonnable et sur base d’un dossier incomplet. Le jugement spécifie que sa condamnation a été faite : "compte tenu de l'état de santé" de Marcel, soit compte tenu qu’il ne pourrait pas sortir de prison en vie, et compte tenu de sa "condition sociale". Ceci confirme que l'application de la loi varie selon la condition sociale des gens.

Marcel Vervloesem a subi cinq opérations majeures en prison, qui n’ont été autorisées que quand il était prévu qu’il ne puisse survivre plus de trois jours, mais il a survécu. Ne sachant comment le tuer, il a été incarcéré avec une veine fémorale ouverte et maintenu dans des conditions d’hygiène pour lui assurer une gangrène, mais il a survécu. Il a refusé son insuline 44 jours, dans l’espoir de mettre fin à ses souffrances, mais il a survécu. Il est un miracle vivant, selon les médecins. Mais le ministère de la justice espère toujours le tuer pour "éteindre les procédures". Il est maintenu en prison, alors qu’il est libérable pour bonne conduite depuis le 5 septembre !

Les grands experts en droit fondamental ne répondent pas aux appels à l’aide pour soulager notre "miracle vivant" de souffrances analogues à la torture. En revanche, ils font un tollé pour Polanski, dans la plus pure tradition d'inversion de rôle entre leurs victimes et leurs amis:

- "Le voir ainsi jeté en pâture pour une histoire qui n’a pas vraiment de sens et de le voir ainsi pris au piège c’est absolument épouvantable", a dit Frédéric Mitterrand, ministre français de la culture.
- "C'est un peu sinistre, cette histoire franchement", a dit Bernard Kouchner, ministre français des affaire étrangères. « Un homme d'un tel talent, reconnu dans le monde entier, reconnu surtout dans le pays qui l'arrête, tout ça n'est pas sympathique".

- "Y'a pas de viol", a dit Costa-Gavras sur Europe 1.
- "...des vices de procédure ont été reconnus," dit Alexandre Tylski, qui parle "d'humiliations publiques et médiatiques."

- "Même Kafka n’a jamais été aussi loin dans l’absurde", a dit Terry Gilliam, le réalisateur de "Brazil".
L'Angleterre et les Etats-Unis, qui par tradition ne mesurent pas l'application de la loi selon la condition sociale des gens, ont été stupéfaits.

Pour résumer, l'affaire Polanski pourrait entraîner la réouverture des dossiers Coral et Zandvoort devant un tribunal américain, d'où la panique à plus haut niveau.

Si la justice Américaine souhaite gagner du temps, elle serait bien avisée de demander l'autorisation de prendre le témoignage de Marcel Vervloesem en prison, avant que la justice belge ne parvienne à le tuer, en le privant de soin à son cancer. Personne ne connaît mieux ce réseau que lui.

-par Jacqueline de Croÿ
Free translation



Will the Polanski case reopen the Coral and Zandvoort dossiers in the USA?

Polanski photographed the nudity of a 13 year old child before he drugged and sodomized her, which supposes he had one these "collections" qualified of paedopornography. His support group includes several personalities blamed of the Coral network, whose collection of paedopornography was for sale by the network of Zandvoort. These dossiers include the oldest European collections of real crimes photographs on children. Polanski was in France at the time of the Coral scandal. His friends and their common interests might lead the American justice to check if the victim of Polanski can be seen in the Zandvoort CDs.

Polanski case is the unique case of a diplomatic scandal to prevent the extradition of a paedocriminal in the United States, because he chose to play cat and mouse for 32 years with the American police force. Roman Polanski has been the most famous fugitive of the world, glorified by the artistic community, with a Golden Palm of Cannes, three Oscars and seven César. He wanted to collect the price of the Festival of film of Zurich for his entire work. He was trapped at the airport, insofar as the operation was so secret, that the paedo protectorate was not able warn him of the danger, as the previous times.

At the origin, Polanski was to answer of rape and of sodomy of a child of less than 14 years, by giving her Quaalude, a hypnotic then used illegally as an entertaining drug. The case was far more shocking as had happened in the house of Jack Nicholson, in his absence, but when his girl-friend, Angelica Huston was at home. The actress had declared that she did not believe that Polanski was a bad man, but that he was an unhappy man.

Polanski had the choice to admit unlawful sex with a minor, thus the American version of the European "diversion of minor", to avoid the charges far more serious. It was a favour.

Polanski was imprisoned 42 days. The eve before the prosecution, the judge said to the lawyers that he thought of an extra 48 days, thus 90 days all together. It was a severe sentence for diverting of minor, but unimportant for the real facts reproached. It exceeded the price which Polanski wished to pay for his crime. He chose to run away. The only country of which he did not risk extradition was France, which had allotted him French nationality.

Polanski lived in glory and riches. His victim was persecuted by the press, which presented her as if she had agreed to be sodomized when she was 13. Polanski convinced her to withdraw the complaint. She does not want to hear any more of him. She is terrorized by this odious press that still currently presents her as having been "seduced" by a man, of which she has the memory of a creepy old man.

American justice has repeated for thirty years, that granting impunity to a man who has drugged and raped a 13-years-old child would be a miscarriage of justice. The American law, therefore the will of the people, recognizes that a crime committed on one of its citizens must be treated as if it had been made on all its citizens. By sodomizing this child, Polanski sodomized 300 million American.

There is also in this concept, the respect of a victim, who can be threatened (as by the press) to withdraw a complaint, of which he or he does not have the capacity to judge peacefully. Should a photograph of of the victim of Polanski be in the Zandvoort collection, the judgement could no more belong to her, because it would also belongs to 88.539 other victims.

Switzerland was requested to apply its agreements of extradition with the USA. The arrest of Polanski was followed traditional hurricane of protests :

"The arrest of the scenario writer Roman Polanski in Switzerland is an "act (which) appears unimaginable and disproportioned", according to Jack Lang, ex-minister of the French culture who hopes for "an active solidarity will organized during the next hours so that freedom is returned to this great European creator".

This network of solidarity has already saved 340 personalities in the Coral case of paedophilia in 1982, of which Jack Lang and a French high-ranking magistrate identified on a photograph with an 11-year old boy, both underpants less.

This network of solidarity becomes active at each scandal which implies a paedo dandy, to explain that all the paedo dandies are victims of the violation of their fundamental rights, and that all those who expose them are liars who seek publicity. The last one who has escaped from Coral prosecution and who has profited from a second campaign of this sort is Robert Mégel, finally condemned to 12 years of prison, for crimes which French justice normally sentences to 20 years of prison.

The Werkgroep Morkhoven, NGO which exposes the Belgian and Dutch branches of this criminal organization since 1989, discovered the Zandvoort file in 1998, where the French branch appeared for the first time. Belgian justice spent 20 years to trap a founding members of this NGO: Marcel Vervloesem, to discredit the evidences that are accusing the paedo dandies.

He was condemned for rapes, in spite of the doctor's certificates ensuring that he was physically unable to survive to what he was accused, well passed the reasonable delay, and on the basis of an incomplete file. The judgement specifies that it had: taken into account the "health condition" of Marcel, that is to say taken for account that he could not leave prison alive, and taken into account of his "social condition". This confirms that the application of the law varies according to the people’s social condition.

Marcel Vervloesem underwent five major surgeries in prison, which were authorized only when it was expected that he could not survive more than three days, but he survived. Not knowing how to kill him, he was incarcerated with an opened femoral vein and maintained under conditions of hygiene to ensure him a gangrene, but he survived. He refused his insulin 44 days in the hope to put an end to his sufferings, but he survived. He is a living miracle, according to the doctors. But the ministry of justice still has hope to kill him to "extinguish the procedures". He is maintained in prison, whereas he is releasable for good behaviour since September 5!

The grand experts of fundamental right do not answer the calls for assistance to relieve our "living miracle" from the sufferings similar to torture. On the other hand, they make an outcry for Polanski, in the purest tradition of inversion of role between their victims and their friends:

- "To see him thus thrown in grazes for a story which does not have really any sense and to see him thus taken in a trap, it is absolutely terrible", said Frederic Mitterrand, Minister French for the culture.

- It is a little sinister, this story frankly", said Bernard Kouchner, French Minister for foreign affairs. "A man of such a talent, recognized in the whole world, especially recognized in the country which has arrested him", all that is not sympathetic".

- "There is no rape", said Costa-Gavras on Europe 1.

-"… defects of procedure were recognized," said Alexandre Tylski, who speaks of "public and media humiliations."

- "Even Kafka never went so far in absurdity", said Terry Gilliam, the producer of "Brazil".

England and the United States, whose by tradition does not measure the application of the law according to the social condition of people, were amazed.

To resume, the Polanski case could involve the reopening of the Coral and Zandvoort files before an American court, from where panic at the highest level.

Should American justice wish to save time, it would be well advised to request the authorisation of collecting the testimony of Marcel Vervloesem in prison, before Belgian justice manages to kill him, by depriving him of treatment to his cancer. No one knows this network better than him.



DROIT FONDAMENTAL
VOUS INVITE A INVITES YOU TO
Consulter les articles en ligne et diffuser l'information avec l'amabilité de mentioner la source www.droitfondamental.eu Consult the articles on ligne and diffuse the information with the kindness to mention the source
hava1
 
Posts: 1141
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:07 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 129 guests