Roman Polanski, or pardon me but your poll is in my neck.

It's the fleeing part that currently fucks him, even more than the crime. Fugitives generally don't get much sympathy, let alone the luxury of dictating terms. What are the real odds that if Polanski manned up and finally faced the (new) judge, that he wouldn't be able to talk whatever sentence he gets down to directing PSAs for R.A.I.N. or something? He's rich, white and famous enough to steamroll the appeals process, if it even gets to that. Plus, Debra Winger and Whoopi Goldberg have totally got his back. Whoopi doesn't even think it was "rape-rape," and she won an Oscar!

Suggest bans all around.

zizekspeaks: I've tried to avoid the Polanski debacle, but find it curious that Lynch has come down on either side. http://tinyurl.com/ye9ohcj

man if that doesn't move this conversation forward, i don't know what will

The vehemence of the language in the petition is downright bizarre - especially compared with the quotes from the French authorities, which seem to be trying hard not to say anything.

"It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him," said the petition

^ I must have missed the passage of the law that says that you get immunity if you happen to be traveling somewhere where they are paying you "homage".

To be fair the guys on To Catch a Predator always make pretty much the same argument.

I think it's the same passage that says if something is to do with football, the law has no business getting involved.

"inadmissible"

Oh fuck the law, it's not meant to be a value in itself

maybe roman just wanted some Sweet Tea

Oh fuck the law, it's not meant to be a value in itself

― Niles Caulder, Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:14 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Profound

Soz for taking what the law's invented to protect more seriously than it itself Bill

I have no idea what you're talking about.

"The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance ... opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects,"

HE'S A FUGITIVE, YOU FUCKING NINNIES.

but he thought he could travel without hindrance, that gives him lifetime immunity imo

niles this is almost a classic performance, wtg man

the hook was well-baited there, niles

"The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance ... opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects,"

^this is spectacularly unconvincing.

I can't believe all the red herrings in all this commentary. Like, repeatedly bringing up the quotes from the victim. This is not a civil lawsuit, folks, it's a criminals case. It's The People of The State of California vs. Polanski. The victim doesn't get to just drop charges.

And the statute of limitations thing? Excuse me? Haven't we had a lot of high profile cases in Europe of Catholic priests molesting kids decades ago?

the fact that i just ate mcdonalds... opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects

Y'know, I've been withholding judgment both because of my personal feelings w/r/t his status as one of my fave directors and also because I really don't know enough about the particulars of the case (like, I'd prefer to read the transcripts or something before I condemn him), but all of these people who are simply shocked that anyone had the gall to apprehend a fugitive from justice are just toooooo much. The fact of his fugitivity is unquestionable, at the very least.

Yeah it is. PLEASE SOME AMERICAN TELL ME WHY IT FUCKING MATTERS

It's The People of The State of California vs. Polanski. The victim doesn't get to just drop charges.

Dunno the details this at all, but if she refuses to give evidence, will the case then just get dropped anyway?

he was already convicted

Of course, yes. Carry on...

well he pleaded guilty but i thought the judge had not accepted it yet since he ran away before he could be sentenced

i mean he was going to. wait maybe i'm wrong

It matters because laws are meant to act indiscriminately, in fact are expressly designed to do so, and yeah the truth and life are often messy grey areas (though this case isn't, particularly). Despite this any law bound society has to enforce its laws and not simply say "eh we can let this one slide, it's a bit weird."

Yeah it is. PLEASE SOME AMERICAN TELL ME WHY IT FUCKING MATTERS

― Niles Caulder, Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:48 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I'm sorry you're so disappointed, Chief.

yeah nm xpost to myself

if there's enough other evidence against an accused, you don't need the victim to testify at all - murder cases would be a bit hard to prosecute otherwise

^^^ this is why it's hard for voodoo forensics specialists

is there much evidence other than her testimony though?

how about that fact that he PLEADED GUILTY

i mean evidence they can use at trial. which i don't think they'll do. i'm not disputing that he's guilty

this point has probably been made here somewhere, but all this talk about how he did something "30 years ago" misses a big point: he has been committing a crime every single day since he fled the country. his crime is still in commission. and not just against something abstract like the justice system, but against the victim too. her forgiveness and calls for clemency are all to her credit. but at the same time, by becoming a fugitive, polanski has kept this thing alive and unresolved in her life too, so that filmmakers 30 years later are still coming to interview her and she has to listen to whoopi goldberg et al parse the legal and anatomical details of the whole thing, even now. what kind of chance for closure does that give her? and all of that is solely because of polanski's selfishness.

but he's been convicted already so they won't. it was a response to ismael klata.

Flying squid attack, do you really think some official censure equates w closure? Some things just don't get closed. In all honesty I'd be amazed if she wasn't more or less over this anyway except OH SHIT SHE IS

There was talk that the plea could be set aside and a retrial ordered, though.

In which case, could they introduce the victim's grand jury testimony and police statements, since she's uncooperative now?
Given the existence of those, and no new denial on her part that the acts were committed, can she be compelled to testify? Would any DA actually do so?

Why do I suspect Niles is rapidly heading for 51...

i really am enjoying how much this appears to bother him

yeah

It appears to, it doesn't really

Why do countries not recognize extradition pleas?

imo they should just forget about the rape and charge him for fleeing, the victim wouldn't have to do anything. if there was a trial for the rape and she refused to testify there's not much they could do.

I assume that's what they planned to do.

It appears to, it doesn't really

― Niles Caulder, Tuesday, September 29, 2009 4:15 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

u been using caps dude, come on

In which case, could they introduce the victim's grand jury testimony and police statements, since she's uncooperative now?

Given the existence of those, and no new denial on her part that the acts were committed, can she be compelled to testify? Would any DA actually do so?

Yes, yes and yes.

no, he has to be able to cross-examine those statements