Um, Well, It Happened A Long Time Ago
Mon amie Emmanuelle Richard (@emmarichard) reread some of "Roman," Polanski's '84 autobio, and Tweeted, "After he flees the US, he boasts of sex with more minors in Europe. I'm done."
Emmanuelle gets it, but Hollywood and others' sympathy for this guy creeps me out.
Meanwhile, there's something I haven't seen in the pieces about this: What kind of mother lets her 13-year-old daughter go without her with a grown man to a photo shoot (or "photo shoot") at Jack Nicholson's house?
In the IHT, Geraldine Ferraro weighs in:
This is the definition of statutory rape. Notice, it doesn't talk about force and it doesn't talk about consent. Neither are needed. The statute is meant to protect children. A 13-year-old can't consent to intercourse with a man over 18, and definitely not with a man in his 30's.Polanski was convicted of a serious crime in the 70's. He chose to abscond to France and because he had money and connections, has lived a charmed life, unhindered by his obligations to society. The message is, rich guys can get away with anything ... or wait -- is it only rich guys with friends in Hollywood? The statute of limitations for rape does not toll simply because 31 years has passed. And victims cannot "forgive" the rapist. The criminal justice system is meant to protect all of us.
UPDATE: Here's the 13-year-old victim's grand jury testimony about what happened from The Smoking Gun.
Well, y'know, times have changed. I think that nowadays, everybody understands that just because you've filled a 13-year old girl with alcohol and methaqualone doesn't mean you can then have all the anal sex with her that you want.
(Thirteen. Not fourteen, not fifteen. Not sixteen. Not seventeen, not even eighteen. A thirteen year old girl.)
But EEEEEEVEN if you were going to overlook that... EVEN if you were... The guy, convicted, skipped out on his sentencing.
Or is that the part that Scorcese expects us to forgive? After all, it was so long ago.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 30, 2009 12:55 AM
This case is apparently pretty open-and-shut, since he had admitted to the deed. Still, the title of this post is actually true: "it happened a long time ago".
There is a reason for statutes of limitations. Prosecuting someone for a crime committed decades ago is just dumb. Evidence is likely to be scarce or nonexistent. Witness memories are unreliable immediately after a crime - given a few years or decades, what people "remember" may bear no resemblance at all to what actually happened.
There is also the purely practical point of encouraging the victims to get on with their lives. Endlessly waiting and hoping a criminal will be caught and prosecuted is a sad waste of a life. After some period of time it is better to know that the book is closed, and that one must get on getting on.
This guy is an admitted sicko and a criminal, fine. Nonetheless: there should be very few crimes without statutes of limitations, and underage sex is certainly not one of them, precisely because of the abuses that can and will happen ("rediscovered" memories, et al).
bradley13 at September 30, 2009 12:56 AM
Oops? Crid says that he skipped out on his sentencing after being convicted. The articles I read said he was going to be prosecuted. If Crid is right, then my earlier comment doesn't make much sense...
bradley13 at September 30, 2009 12:58 AM
He pled guilty to statutory rape. Given that in a plea bargain a defendant usually pleads to a lesser charge, and reading the transcripts of the girl's testimony at the time, it is likely that the actual crime committed would have been considered drugged, coerced, forcible rape regardless of the girl's age.
Clinky at September 30, 2009 1:21 AM
This has been more of a nightmare for the victim. Who says? She does. As an adult.
Imagine having your picture posted everywhere, repeatedly, in this manner. They might as well caption each, "Ridden like rented mule by pedophile".
Radwaste at September 30, 2009 2:34 AM
Raddy - As of about five years ago, she was consenting to tabloid tv interviews, complete with mamma-walking-on-the-beach-at-sunset footage. This isn't like Kobe's girl, who might have been trying to stay anonymous. If this woman's name is available to us, it's because she made it so... Deep in adulthood. In the photo at your link, she's smiling with convincing comfort for a woman who wants it all "to go away."
______
PS- As this story gels (over the next three hours or the next few weeks, depending), please remember an important component of Western judgment— This prosecution is not the whimsical plaything of the victim: It is the righteous property of the society that produced it. This is not her call to make, no matter what happened to a little girl.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 30, 2009 3:27 AM
Come on- If this guy wasn't associated with Hollywood they would be calling for his head.
David M. at September 30, 2009 4:35 AM
Instapundit nails it.
The "creative elite" are better than us. That means that they don't get punished for violating society's laws.
Laws are for the little people.
brian at September 30, 2009 5:14 AM
THANK YOU!
I'm so glad you wrote about this. You and Kate Harding at Salon.
There are so many articles that are like, "But his movies are great!" Fine! No one is calling for a ban on his movies. His ass being in jail isn't going to stop you from seeing his movies!
I'm so sick of all the OJs of the world getting away with this stuff because they're famous.
NicoleK at September 30, 2009 5:28 AM
Oh, and if it is true that the mother threw her daughter at him, she needs to be in jail, too. Not sure why they never tried her.
NicoleK at September 30, 2009 5:29 AM
In other news, all charges against Phillip Garrido for the kidnapping and repeated rape of an 11 year old girl held for 18 years against her will are being dropped following testimony by an expert witness familiar with the nuances of rape. "Once Whoopie Goldberg explained this wasn't a "Rape-Rape" we realized there was no reason to pursue a criminal trial." explained the district attorney.
Charges were dropped so fast that Debra Winger and Melissa Gilbert did not even have time to testify why he should be allowed to go free. They still presented a petition from the Hollywood community asking for charges to be dropped in the name of justice and freedom for the artistic community.
"We want to be the voice for all victims like Mr. Garrido facing injustice." explained Ms. Winger.
LoneStarJeffe at September 30, 2009 5:43 AM
How about a little more nuance from the perpetrator:
“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”
From an interview with Martin Amis, given soon after he absconded to avoid his sentence. I'd suggest that the idiots who keep saying he's never repeated his crime prove their ridiculous assertion.
The same pack of elitist morons have suggested he ran off because of judicial misconduct. Hell, yes there was misconduct. It consists of the judge accepting a lesser plea and agreeing to a sentence of 48 days.
And just so everyone is clear: A convicted criminal who manages to dodge the fruits of his conviction does not have any right to invoke a statute of limitations.
Robin at September 30, 2009 6:07 AM
From what I've read, his 42 days at a state mental hospital were going to be all he would serve. His lawyer overheard a conversation saying the judge was going against the plea deal so he fled. 42 days for raping a 13 year old? He can claim judicial misconduct all he wants, there is no excuse for a man having sex with a 13 year old girl. I have a 12 year old and I know I'd kill him if it was my daughter. And I question the mother for leaving her, but like a lot of stupid parents, she was probably caught up in who he was and getting her daughter a career. Can anyone say Michael Jackson sleepovers?
My favorite thing reading the news yesterday was hearing that Woody Allen was among the celebrities demanding his release. It always helps to have someone who married his own daughter to come out on your side. The statement from the famous celebs fighting for Polanski's release read, "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." Let this be a precedent. The effect should now be known as, if you rape a young girl and flee, we will catch you. We don't care how tragic your life was or how many brilliant movies you have made. You raped someone and didn't face your sentence and now we're going to make you.
Kristen at September 30, 2009 6:08 AM
Polanski is a sicko, creep. He needs to be in jail and be on the receiving end (no pun intended) of some of the stuff he’s been handing out to others.
Roger at September 30, 2009 6:22 AM
I am raging over this for the last few days. How can you defend the un-defendable? Even more, how France, a country who claim to be "Civilized", could allow suck abuse of Justice for three decades?
In all honesty, I am maintaining a list of those who are backing that sick monster Polanski. Let's see where their thinking will lead them in the future.
Toubrouk at September 30, 2009 6:40 AM
He'd be dead if it were my kid. Period. Of course, I wouldn't leave my kid with strange men just to feel important my association.
There is no statute of limitations for someone convicted of a crime. You don't get to just up and decide you aren't serving your sentence.
There should be NO where you can expect to travel unhindered if you're a fugitive. Fucking whiny little bitch.
momof4 at September 30, 2009 6:53 AM
Fucking whiny little bitch.
And then some. He's a total disgrace to his profession and to the rest of the "elite" he pretends to be one of. He is. A. Sick bastard. Period.
Flynne at September 30, 2009 6:58 AM
The statute of limitations does not apply anymore because he pled guilty and was convicted. He is now facing charges related to his skipping bail and fleeing the country before he could be sentenced and serve the time for his crime. If he had faced the music 31 years ago, the media would not be in a position to get multiple chubbies over this story--it'd be old news.
Worker Bee at September 30, 2009 7:09 AM
Worker Bee nails it. It's not that Polanski avoided trial -- the trial took place, he pled guilty, it's over. He was out on bail pending sentencing and he fled the country during that time. And if he'd stayed and did his country-club sentence, he would have been released long ago and the whole thing would be forgotten by now.
Cousin Dave at September 30, 2009 7:21 AM
>>This prosecution is not the whimsical plaything of the victim: It is the righteous property of the society that produced it.
Your effrontery amazes me, Crid.
The fact you can use "righteous" with a straight face, after snottily observing (in the same comment): "If this woman's name is available to us, it's because she made it so... Deep in adulthood. In the photo at your link, she's smiling with convincing comfort for a woman who wants it all "to go away.""
The reason this woman's name is available to us is because she's tried to be candid about her adult take on an infamous - and infamously open-ended - tabloid fodder crime. If she had said nothing since, she'd still have been the subject of prurient speculation.
Actually, I'm surprised at your sneers at the fact she's allowed footage of walking-on-the-beach with her mom and all the rest. I don't get it.
How does the fact that the victim can smile and function as an adult woman over-complicate things for you?
Jody Tresidder at September 30, 2009 7:22 AM
Apparently the international arrest warrent came out in 2005... why did it take that long? Were there new post 911 extradition deals or something?
NicoleK at September 30, 2009 7:32 AM
And if he'd stayed and did his country-club sentence, he would have been released long ago and the whole thing would be forgotten by now.
Yeah, sure. Until the next one. Because there would have been, you know. I wonder how many underage girls he slept with in Europe? And how much they were paid off not to tell.
How does the fact that the victim can smile and function as an adult woman over-complicate things for you?
Nice call, Jody. Crid, you got some 'splainin' to do...
I actually admire the fact that she did, in fact, get on with her life. That does NOT exonerate Polanski, ya know. What he did was an immorally shitty thing to do to a 13-year-old. That she managed to make it to adulthood and have a relatively normal life, well, she deserves some kudos for that. He deserves to go to jail, and nothing less.
Flynne at September 30, 2009 7:32 AM
Bradley, none of what you say is relevant when the criminal plead guilty as part of a plea agreement and then fled rather than face the sentence.
And folks, Crid is right: the victim is relevant, but not controlling. Society has its own interest in prosecuting child rapists, and the law must keep its promises, especially promises to parents in general regarding the protection of their children. Otherwise, don't expect people to respect the law or its enforcers. Then where the hell are we?
Also, anyone else notice that the same Hollywood types who salivate over the idea that Bush administration officials may get arrested if they go out of the country are outraged that this sick fugitive got arrested, finally? Enough said, I think.
Spartee at September 30, 2009 8:39 AM
Quite frankly the only people quailifed to defend Polanski are those who have had their own 13yr old children raped
lujlp at September 30, 2009 8:44 AM
Anyone know if Polaskis view and the prosecution of Nazis(who killed his familly) are on par with his view on how he should be treated by the courts?
luljp at September 30, 2009 8:47 AM
Should be "on the prosecution"
lujlp at September 30, 2009 8:49 AM
Just curious how far are Polaski's supporters willing to go?
Will the offer up their own 13yr old daugters and grandaugters for drugging a rape to show their support and prove its not really that big of a deal?
lujlp at September 30, 2009 9:11 AM
Here's a choice tidbit. Poland, whose artists & cabinet ministers are falling over themselves demanding the release of their distinguished citizen, just passed a law mandating chemical castration for convicted pedophiles:
http://www.thespec.com/opinions/article/644556
Martin at September 30, 2009 9:16 AM
Quite frankly the only people quailifed to defend Polanski are those who have had their own 13yr old children raped
Or been raped as a 13 year old.
It is about time justice was served in this case.
-Julie
Julie at September 30, 2009 9:32 AM
I couldn't read the whole thing. I basically just felt like this guy should have a noose put around his neck and hung somewhere in downtown L.A.
Gretchen at September 30, 2009 9:37 AM
guess the whole nation of laws thing escapes some people... the question is not about if he did it, he admitted that. The question is if he has paid. I'm sure his fear now is that the plea has been nulified by his skip, so now there may be real music to face.
SwissArmyD at September 30, 2009 9:39 AM
I don't understand how he got the 48 day plea deal in the first place. The only explanation is that he must've had a lot of sympathy because of his wife's slaying. Maybe some of these Hollywood idiots thought he acted out of grief or shock, that he's not "normally" a pedophile. After all, he was married to beautiful Sharon Tate, so that proves he likes women, not little girls. This guy just doesn't match their vision of what a pedophile is.
There's also the overtone of it being "artistic". Remember how different the climate was years ago. You had Jodie Foster and Brooke Shields playing prostitutes at age 12 or 13. Shields was in that movie "Pretty Baby" and took some very provocative photos (though her mother/manager was always there). Having been in art school, I think there's a certain artsy elitism to this, as in it's not really pedopholia if the object of lust is so beautiful and the perpetrator is a genius. Pedophilia is only what you call it when it happens to "ordinary" people, but these are beautiful people.
lovelysoul at September 30, 2009 10:18 AM
MY POLANSKI JOKE
Q: Have you heard the real reason why Roman Polanski is being brought back to America by the U.S. Government?
A: Obama and ACORN plan to appoint him as their Underage Prostitution Czar.
Robert W. (Vancouver) at September 30, 2009 10:51 AM
I think lovelysoul makes a very interesting point - in fact, the most interesting point I've yet during in this whole debacle.
ja at September 30, 2009 10:53 AM
> Your effrontery amazes
Jody, because you're not from our country, we have to have extra patience for you as you come to recognize the patterns of responsibility and courage that nourish the finest jurisprudence the cosmos has every seen, that of our United States of America.
(Etc., etc. I've been making fun of Jody like that for years, right? Everyone knows where it's going, so y'all can just write a couple of more lines for yourselves. Try it!:
____________________________________
____________________________________.)
> The reason this woman's name is
> available to us is because she's
> tried to be candid about her
> adult take
Point being? Who asked for her candor (after the trial)? It's ridiculous (and misogynistic) to suggest that a rape victim gets brownie points for talking about these painful events at the loud, indiscriminate volume which modern media enables.
With the word "Ick", Mcardle linked some text of her testimony yesterday, presumably the same stuff Amy links in the update. There's a special kind of sadness to feel for a seventh-grader who has to talk in front of a roomful of strange grownups about the unmistakable sensation of man-goo sloshing around in her underpants.
If a (young) woman has to suffer the (further) indignity of such honest testimony, then I consider her contribution to the matter concluded and her responsibility well-fulfilled. She can retire to anonymity for the rest of her life... and Godspeed to you, Lil' Angel. She has no duty to relive the moment thereafter, and doing so doesn't enhance her service to justice or comity. This woman's casual appraisal of Polanski's fate means no more to me than does Pirate Jo's, or Conan's, or Amy's.
> If she had said nothing since,
> she'd still have been the
> subject of prurient speculation.
She'll be the subject of prurient speculation no matter what. That's one of the reasons many of us want Polanski to be severely punished. (And again, it's why I think a truly feminist approach [as well as a warmly human one] is to let her pursue the rest of her life without regard to these events.)
> she's allowed footage of walking-
> on-the-beach with her mom and
> all the rest. I don't get it.
Let me help you.
First, she was the loving Mom strolling serenely into the richly-golden, lightly-windblown sunset. As a Pac-island-style sarong fluttered gently around her steady, contemplative gait, she gazed winsomely at an unseen horizon of contentment stretching behind the camera, while young children gamboled by the waterline in innocent, cheerful ignorance of the nightmare this woman had suffered... etc. etc.
Secondly, or in other words, this footage wasn't "allowed". It was composed. I think it was Entertainment Tonight. Coulda been anybody... Today show, whatever. I know the stench of midlevel television when I smell it. This was about 2002.
This is the sort of fame that strikes a certain kind of American as the diamond core of a life well-lived. Who knows? Maybe it's a precious reward for good character, or maybe it's a stinking pile of shit. (I think the latter.) But it's the kind of fame that doesn't come to people who don't want it.
> That she managed to make it to
> adulthood and have a relatively
> normal life, well, she deserves
> some kudos for that.
I would agree with you if I had any, any measure of intimacy with this woman at all. If she was a member of my high school class, I'd give her an 'attaboy' at the reunion, and pat her son on the head before taking another pass at the chips 'n dip. (OK, I'd probably do another flyby of the bar, as well.)
But in the public sphere, civilization's responsibility is to punish this woman's attacker, and to discourage those who'd make similar assaults on others, and then to withdraw from her life. We're not here to give her therapy.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 30, 2009 12:24 PM
Personally, I don't care if she talks on TV or not, that's her business. But as for withdrawing the case and dropping the charges? No.
Crid makes a good point... if she's so traumatized about reliving it, she should, maybe, you know, stop going on TV and reliving it. But that's her business.
NicoleK at September 30, 2009 12:28 PM
Crid - Perhaps unintentional but I find it quite creepy how you seem to get off on describing the dirty parts.
She hasn't made a media spectacle of herself: no big, no Vanity Fair cover. I haven't even seen where she's been directly quoted about the arrest.
It was clear at some point that the media knew who she was, wanted her to speak, and wasn't going away until she did. So she did. She in no way tried to make a career of being Polanski's victim and has not where I can see ever attempted to profit from it -- which is so so so. . .unAmerican!
JulieA at September 30, 2009 12:53 PM
I find it a bit disturbing that she blames the DA for the case not being resolved - rather than Polanski. I understand why she'd just want it all to go away. But the reason it isn't going away is because Polanski jumped bail and lived a very public life in France.
====================
I wonder if all those folks who are defending Polanski would send their own 13-year-old daughters for a photo shoot and sleepover at Uncle Roman's house.
Maybe they could send along some champagne and quaaludes, too. Or are they not worried because this creative genius only molests the daughters of the proletariat?
====================
As I understand it, Polanski had promised to stop and pick up a family friend to act as chaperone during the shoot. But, of course, he reneged on that promise.
However, Mom should have called said family friend to verify the pick up.
====================
Now that we've gotten Einhorn back and might be about to get Polanski back, are there any other fugitives from US justice openly living in France?
Maybe we could charter a plane and bring them all back at once.
Conan the Grammarian at September 30, 2009 12:58 PM
...Not sure which is more disgusting--what he did or his "supporters" who defend him because after all, it happened a few decades ago...and to quote Whoopi, "Well, it wasn't rape-rape" Excuse me? I'd encourage you to read her transcript that Amy linked to above, put your young daughter/sister/niece in place of this girl. Typical Hollywood elitism, the rules simply don't apply to them...
And the girl's mother? Don't EVEN get me started...what a sorry excuse for a parent. "Sure, Mr. 40 yr old director, you can hang out with my 13 year old daughter alone, that's cool..." It is a parent's responsibilitiy to make sure that their kids are safe and supervised at ALL TIMES. When you read the transcript the girl admits to being sexually active, under the influence of drugs and alcohol previously...where's mom? Hmmmmmm.
Beth at September 30, 2009 1:05 PM
>>Crid makes a good point... if she's so traumatized about reliving it, she should, maybe, you know, stop going on TV and reliving it. But that's her business.
NicoleK,
Crid simply repeats what was a lousy point in the first place, actually.
(Though I confused who it was so fetchingly strolling along the sun kissed sand with whom. I thought it was the now adult victim with her own - presumably elderly - mother..I got that wrong.)
If she - the victim - has elected NOT to retire to dignified anonymity - that is her choice - and, let us not forget, the bloody story is STILL actively unfolding 32 years later!
Good for her if she rattles certain folk who, it would seem, prefer to cling to a faded snapshot of a little girl violated rather than the lively, opinionated broad that little girl grew up to be.
Jody Tresidder at September 30, 2009 1:05 PM
Maybe we could charter a plane and bring them all back at once.
WARNING EMOTIONAL RESPONSE
Why not use the green alternative, kill them while we are in Europe and put their bodies in the compost heap?
END OF EMOTIONAL RESPONSE
To my understanding France won't extradite anyone to the US because the US still has the death penalty. Do y'all think it would be worth it to suspend the death penalty in this country to keep fugitives from having such an easy place to find sanctuary?
(Not saying I want to do this, only opening up dialog).
-Julie
Julie at September 30, 2009 1:09 PM
As I understand it, by the time of the Polanski incident, the young lady, thanks to her ever-lovin' momma, had already been around the block in Hollywood, as they say.
I call bullshit on the story that mom was going to rely on a family friend to "chaperone," and then forgot to check. Why in holy hell would you ever need a "chaperone" for a 13 year-old girl and a thirty year-old man?! Chaperones are for the purpose of keeping kids apart who might otherwise engage in hanky-panky. So, hanky-panky was expected, then?
By the way, my prediction: Polanski comes back, and the charges are dismissed based on judicial misconduct. Face saving all the way around.
Jay R at September 30, 2009 1:14 PM
Julie: "To my understanding France won't extradite anyone to the US because the US still has the death penalty. Do y'all think it would be worth it to suspend the death penalty in this country to keep fugitives from having such an easy place to find sanctuary?"
It won't help. They will just find another excuse. There's a case I've read about fairly recently, about a fugitive whom Mexico won't extradite to the U.S., even after the prosecutor in the case agreed to reduce the charges so that the death penalty wouldn't apply.
Flynne: "Yeah, sure. Until the next one. Because there would have been, you know. I wonder how many underage girls he slept with in Europe?"
Good point; I hadn't thought of it that way. And actually, I saw a quote this morning where he admitted (bragged,actually) that he has slept with underage girls while he's been in exile. I'll try to find it.
John Nolte, on Big Hollywood, wrote a post this morning that says that the Hollywood support of Polanski is really due to his political solidarity with them. Polanski was an outspoken opponent of Bush and the Iraq War in Europe. Regardless of what one might think of these topics, I believe we can all agree that rape is not excused by the political views of the rapist.
Cousin Dave at September 30, 2009 1:24 PM
another thing--I read the transcript of her testimony and the one line that really tugged at my heartstrings was when she referred to him performing "cuddliness" and when asked to explain, you see that she is referring to "cunnilingus". 13 is a KID!! What a sick twist....
Beth at September 30, 2009 1:28 PM
You're probably right, Jay R.
I don't think it should matter whether she'd already had sex or not, or whether she forgives him now.
That victim Casey may "forgive" her tormentor, Garrido, too. After all, she has two kids by him, but should that mean we excuse the fact that he's a child predator? These criminals tend to repeat offend, as it sounds like Polanski already has. It's just repulsive that anyone would defend him. They wouldn't do it for an ordinary Joe. They'd tar and feather him on national TV. It's only because he's considered a genius, and she a little Lolita, that this is accepted by the artsy elite.
lovelysoul at September 30, 2009 1:31 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/defending-polan.html#comment-1670362">comment from Cousin DavePolanski was an outspoken opponent of Bush and the Iraq War
Yeah? So was I. I don't care if you agree on me on every issue, if you're a child rapist, you should be prosecuted, and you should go to jail.
Amy Alkon at September 30, 2009 1:34 PM
> What a sick twist....
Good eye, Beth.
(Tressider: Standby. Research in archives underway)
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 30, 2009 1:43 PM
NicoleK, as far as the warrant being from 2005, I read that it was from when he was negotiating with the LA DA about resolving the case a few years back. He wanted it dismissed before he appeared and the DA wanted him to appear before they agreed to anything. Supposedly Polanski was extremely arrogant and made statements that the DA has not tried to find him until then which apparently upset the wrong people who then quietly looked into his travels and where they could get him. Those were news accounts that I read.
Kristen at September 30, 2009 2:02 PM
>>Research in archives underway
For real, Crid? I am impressed.
>>As I understand it, by the time of the Polanski incident, the young lady, thanks to her ever-lovin' momma, had already been around the block in Hollywood, as they say.
Gotta little Madonna/whore thing goin' there, Jay R?
I'm bleakly glad you posted that.
It's precisely that sort of ugly mumbling about the original case that justifies the adult victim's reasons for still trying to explain how it all happened.
Jody Tresidder at September 30, 2009 2:03 PM
This was apparently not statutory rape, but RAPE, based on the use of drugs.
Amy, I seldom totally disagree with you.
But, in this case, one of the really sick things in the US is the part which you referred to. She can consent to sex with a young person, but not an old person. WTF?
This is totally insane, and yes, I realize it is the law in most of the US.
She can either consent to sex or she cannot. The age of the penis which is about to enter her 13 year old body has nothing to do with her emotional or intellectual ability to consent to sex.
I realize we are all products of our culture, so I understand most of you can't really understand this, because it has been this way for nearly 3 decades, and most people don't stop to ask themselves if this makes sense. It does not.
irlandes at September 30, 2009 2:34 PM
I had an idea, lets kick out every forgien national and deny every immagration visa, ad turn back everyone seeking to enter our country - including diplomats from those countries refusing to extradite their citizens who have commited crimes in our country
lujlp at September 30, 2009 3:13 PM
irlandes - a 13 year old cannot consent to sex in any state.
In other words, if two 13 year-olds do the horizontal bone dance, they are both criminals.
brian at September 30, 2009 3:19 PM
Some states have "Romeo and Juliet" clauses allowing for two young people to have sex with each other. The age of the penis DOES matter in that the power imbalance between an adult and a child makes it impossible for consent to occur.
It's like if you have two six-year olds playing "You show me yours and I'll show you mine". It's a very different dynamic than an adult going off with a six year old and playing the same game.
NicoleK at September 30, 2009 3:31 PM
Thanks Kristin.
As to the whole "Mom as pimp" thing, it's irrelevant. If that's true, she should be tried as well, of course, but it doesn't mean he SHOULDN'T be!
NicoleK at September 30, 2009 3:35 PM
As part of his punishment, he should be forced to have sex with Whoopi, and ram it up her ass and see if she thinks it is "rape-rape"
ron at September 30, 2009 3:41 PM
"She can either consent to sex or she cannot. The age of the penis which is about to enter her 13 year old body has nothing to do with her emotional or intellectual ability to consent to sex."
au (ho-ho-ho-whooahh) contraire! Never being a victim of this myself, I can do very little to identify with the survivor, but you bet your sweet ass there is a difference. The dynamics are WAY different. You are absurd if you truly believe that clumsy sexual fumblings between two kids is even remotely similar to drugged sex with a much older adult. (PS. You piss me off).
I am happy to hear of this womans recovery, but the way in which *she* chose to pop back up onto the scene (while I am not inclined to be harsh) was a bit mawkish.
Had she been approached after her years into recovery and found to have been speaking to young women who fell victim to similar unfortunate circumstances (true nature of a survivor) with what she had done to overcome such unfortunate circumstances in order to assist others, I would have a different opinion.
That said, Polanski deserves the harshest punishment we have legally available for his crime.
Feebie at September 30, 2009 4:03 PM
(PS. You piss me off).
This Feeb kid's packin' heat.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 30, 2009 4:42 PM
Jay R, you seem to have the misconception that Mr. Polanski skipped out at an earlier stage of the proceedings. We are past the issue of "charges" - the man pled guilty and was convicted, and has never even bothered to claim innocence.
CB at September 30, 2009 4:48 PM
> Good for her if she rattles
> certain folk
If justice was properly served in 1977 (which I understand to be her position), she has no business "rattling" anything.
I think you're searching too hard for a girly narrative of pluck and I'll-show-them -itude. We've seen this from you before, Jody... Two years ago, you linked to a video clip of a mediocre young musical performer in an overwrought television melodrama (if that's not a redundancy), and I asked you: "Listen, if these people like music so much, why do they have to tart it up with all these other narratives?"
And today I would ask you: Listen, if you like justice so much, why do you have to tart it up with all these other narratives?
> certain folk who, it would
> seem, prefer to cling to a
> faded snapshot of a little
> girl violated rather than
> the lively, opinionated broad
I'm not clinging to anything: She testified, we got a conviction, and we dismissed her from the courthouse with our gratitude and best wishes. This woman didn't come into my life (as a taxpaying citizen in whose authority the courts operated) as a source of amusement, and I have no reason to be concerned with, or informed of, her emotional development.
Y'know what women like? Drama. Especially the emotional stuff! Women love to talk about feelings. Ever catch that Oprah Winfrey woman on the tee vee? Like that! Talk talk talk, they'll make you nuts. Prager once said "The demon in feminine nature is a woman's presumption that her feelings and the feelings of her loved ones are of paramount importance." I personally worded it like this: "Women aren't like normal people."
She can say whatever she wants, she can walk whatever beach she wants, and if you want to listen to her, than I'm happy for you both. But her opinion of this prosecution, and the pending enforcement of it, is not something for which her opinion carries extra weight.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 30, 2009 6:28 PM
Missed one —
> I find it quite creepy how you seem
> to get off on describing the dirty
> parts.
Your "creepy" discomfort is indeed your own beeswax... And Polanski's, for that matter! I'm not twitchy about inappropriate teenage sex because I've never had any. I've made it as clear as possible that I'd rather not be bothered with this woman today at all.
> She hasn't made a media spectacle > of herself
And yet I saw this richly staged footage (well, middle-budget footage) on a national magazine telecast. So to say...
> no Vanity Fair cover
...is only to say she's hasn't been wildly successful at it. There are plenty of "stars" from Survivor who never made VF, either.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 30, 2009 6:41 PM
Oh Crid, who wrote: There's a special kind of sadness to feel for a seventh-grader who has to talk in front of a roomful of strange grownups about the unmistakable sensation of man-goo sloshing around in her underpants.
One sit down when the press is hounding you doesn't a media slut make. That they keep replaying the footage is another thing that's not her fault.
And she has every right to talk when everyone is talking about her.
JulieA at September 30, 2009 7:08 PM
Crid,
The latest from your comfy righteous throne: But her opinion of this prosecution, and the pending enforcement of it, is not something for which her opinion carries extra weight.
[Just to be clear, I don't pretend her opinion carries any legal weight. That's not my point, which - of course -I think you knew already.]
Earlier you also asked: Who asked for her candor (after the trial)?
I still can't catch your drift.
She doesn't need permission to speak up candidly on this subject, not then, not now - not ever!
Her opinion about this news story does have more weight than a random boob on the tube because this is her story. She has lived more intimately with the fact of Polanski's flight from justice than anyone else.
You can dolly up your peculiar aversion to her by guffawing about ladies and their appetite for Oprah all you like. Big whoop!
This woman is a legitimate witness to this - as yet unresolved - phase of a successful criminal prosecution that personally involved her.
Fair game if you hate what she says.
But so far, the fact she's dared to say anything at all seems to be your only beef.
(I sorta loved your super-snotty phrase - "we dismissed her from the courthouse"! Did "we" indeed, my lord!)
Jody Tresidder at September 30, 2009 7:15 PM
Let me get this straight: There are young men in multiple states who are now serving time for consensual sex that qualified as statutory rape because of a year or so difference in their ages and that of their partners -- young men who will permanently be branded as sex offenders -- and I'm supposed to feel sorry for Roman friggin' Polanski? Hell no. When one of his celebrity defenders takes up a case of a low-resource 18-year-old high schooler who's being prosecuted for having consensual sex with his 16 1/2-year-old girlfriend, then I might start to take them seriously on this issue.
Also, sorry, Whoopi, but this was rape-rape. He didn't "have sex" with the girl. He drugged her up and did various things to her while she protested. That's rape. The prosecutors in the late 70s may have thought that statutory rape would be easier to prove than full-out rape, but that doesn't mean that Polanski didn't do something that would be horrible whatever the girl's age. And yes, I agree, he was only convicted of statutory rape...but see my first paragraph above. For better or worse, we seem to have decided in this country that statutory rape is a Big Deal. (And I wouldn't disagree with that if prosecutors were focusing their ire on 24-year-old guys knocking up 15-year-old girls.) Polanski doesn't get a free pass on that.
(As for Whoopi -- I seem to remember that her 15-year-old daughter turned up pregnant some time ago. It's possible the daughter's babydaddy was also underage, but statistically speaking, it's more likely that he was a legal adult. Whoopi, like a lot of people in Hollywood, seems to be focusing maniacally on the letter of the charges. I wonder if Whoopi feels any guilt for having her daughter have a relationship that ended with her pregnant before she could get her driver's license? Just hypothesizing...)
As for the victim: I'm glad she's had a happy life despite her turbulent adolescence with her criminally negligent mother and the resulting spotlight. But I can tell you now that the prosecutors aren't thinking only of her. They're also thinking of someone who's name they don't know yet -- some star in Hollywood who, in the not-too-distant future, will end up at a party or a more intimate situation with drunk, drugged girls who look mighty young. What the prosecutors want is for that star, somewhere in his brain, to think, "Waitaminute, if they'd bring Polanski to court 30 years later, what would they do to me?"
Also, see here for more about why things went down in this case the way that they did: http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/articledoublex.aspx?cp-documentid=21977718&page=0
Basically, the legal system in L.A. was trying to put the case behind it. All Polanski had to do was to show up in court. He refused. When the legal system practically offers you a pardon on a silver platter if you do just one thing, and you refuse to do that one thing, you're pretty much guaranteeing that said legal system will come after you like a ton of bricks, so as to preserve its credibility when offering other high-profile bargains of this nature.
Oh, and I think Francophile Amy will especially like this. From Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post:
"Hasn't Roman Polanski suffered enough? Didn't he endure all those cool, gray, rainy Paris winters? Wasn't he forced -- well, not forced, but strongly enticed -- to subsist all those years on overpriced fare served up by haughty waiters in Michelin-starred restaurants? Didn't he survive for decades having his vacation options limited, essentially, to the grim monotony of the South of France?"
marion at September 30, 2009 7:30 PM
> And she has every right to
> talk when everyone is talking
> about her.
She has every right to talk even when everyone isn't talking about her! I'm just not compelled to care, or even listen. Rather get Conan the Grammarian's take, m'self, or maybe that Snake guy, or one of the Michelles who shows up here every few weeks.
> I still can't catch your drift.
What you'd said was:
> the reason this woman's name is
> available to us is because she's
> tried to be candid
– As if some great civic virtue were being demonstrated. I don't think so. I needn't admire her any more than I would a similar victim who lived on anonymously. Nothing criminal about it, nothing evil, maybe not even distasteful. I just don't think we have to care.
> Her opinion about this news
> story does have more weight than
> a random boob on the tube
> because this is her story.
No. No. A thousand times no. Again, I think you have weird ideas about the authority of law by a populace because you're from a foreign land where that's not how it works (a touchiness which reappears moments later). But again: The prosecution of this man is not her property. It was executed, judged and (poorly) enforced by other parties in the name of the People to the benefit of all.
> This woman is a legitimate
> witness to this - as yet
> unresolved - phase of a
> successful criminal prosecution
As are we all.
> the fact she's dared to say
> anything at all seems to be your
> only beef.
No, it's that I'm expected to be personally impressed by her 'candor'.
> Did "we" indeed, my lord!
See, Jody, you're so steamed about this that you invert the logic. (You've done that before, too. There's no sniggering lordliness here: The authority to prosecute comes solely from The People, not some syphilitic royalty.
It's an America thang. Keep studying, you'll get the hang of it.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 30, 2009 7:45 PM
Crid,
I tweaked your use of "we dismissed her from the court" for its pomposity.
You said: See, Jody, you're so steamed about this that you invert the logic. (You've done that before, too. There's no sniggering lordliness here: The authority to prosecute comes solely from The People, not some syphilitic royalty.It's an America thang. Keep studying, you'll get the hang of it.
And I do remember when we covered this before. And I remember lobbing you a lovely quote from one of your own countrymen, Mark Twain:
Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial "we."
I have nowhere claimed the prosecution of Polanski is her property, btw. Straw man.
Of course you don't have to listen to woman if if's not your cuppa tea.
Tell you what - I'll keep listening for us both.
(It's no trouble. You're welcome.)
Jody Tresidder at October 1, 2009 4:20 AM
Apparently the international arrest warrent came out in 2005... why did it take that long?
The simple answer is that Polanski dredged the whole thing up himself. His lawyers filed a motion a few months ago asking that all the charges against him be dropped because of "judicial misconduct". Conveniently, they "discovered" this misconduct soon after the judge involved was dead and unable to provide his version of events. And part of their argument was a claim that the failure of the LA DA to seek an international arrest warrant was a sign they were afraid to litigate the issue of "judicial misconduct".
The reality is that for 30 years "the People v Polanski" has been a major embarrassment to the DA's office on just about every level. They offered a sweetheart deal of 90 days jail time to a film industry bigshot, and then took no steps to make sure he actually showed up for sentencing. The original prosecutors probably did prefer that he just stay in France, and two generations later, their successors probably had forgotten all about the case.
Well, Polanski reminded them he existed, and insulted them in the process. The LA DA's office has responded by announcing its not afraid to litigate the case, and has expressed its belief that Polanski should be required to do so from Los Angeles, not the Rivieria. If he spends the rest of his life in a jail cell, he'll have earned it on grounds of criminal stupidity as well as his original offense.
c.gray at October 1, 2009 7:41 AM
Actually, this is the most delicious bit of your argument, Crid:
>>She'll be the subject of prurient speculation no matter what...(And again, it's why I think a truly feminist approach [as well as a warmly human one] is to let her pursue the rest of her life without regard to these events.)
(My ital, above.)
In "Tess of the D'Urbevilles" (Polanski directed a film version in 1979, with the Kinski girl in the title role), the super-snotty parson's son Angel Clare cruelly rejects Tess.
Not because she WAS violated as a maiden by the rotter Alec D'Urbeville.
But because she refuses - as a grown woman - to "pursue the rest of her life without regard to [this] event".
The adult Tess wants Angel to accept that the woman he loves NOW had a stained past (this was published in 1891, hence Angel's righteous prissiness...).
He cannot accept her candor about her past - and it all ends in tears.
You, Crid, ain't nothing but a 19th century parson's son!
Jody Tresidder at October 1, 2009 7:52 AM
A UK gallery just had to remove a nude photo of Brooke Shields taken when she was 10 yrs old, which just demonstrates how much things have changed since Polanski was photographing this girl. Can you imagine anyone photographing a nude 10 yr old today and being able to get away with calling it art?
http://entertainment.msn.com/news/article.aspx?news=434198
lovelysoul at October 1, 2009 9:35 AM
Can anyone tell me why I should ever watch any film Scorcese does again? I'm even questioning whether I should watch any old Scorcese films "Taxi Driver", "Mean Streets" or "Last Temptation of Christ". What should I do?
Crusader at October 1, 2009 10:29 AM
There is bigger problem here that is not so easily undone. That being Polanski got a sweet Hollywood deal even 30 years ago by pleading out to statutory rape.
Even if he is extradited and made to serve out a maximum sentence, that would only amount to 16 months.
He could conceivably withdraw his guilty plea, but that would open up all the more serious charges of rape, drugging a minor, etc.
Hate Polanski all you want, but the most severe admonishment should be reserved for late-70's Hollywood "justice."
snakeman99 at October 1, 2009 11:08 AM
> Polanski directed a film version
> in 1979, with the Kinski girl in
> the title role
OK, now, Kinski's the one who had an affair with him when she was 15 and he was 35, right? OK, got it. Go ahead....
> because she refuses - as a grown
> woman - to "pursue the rest of
> her life without regard to
> [this] event".
Your fictional, ham-handed conjunction of those narratives is transparent. You're not even being clever. I never said anything of the kind. I don't understand why you did all that exercise. Let me repeat some things for about the fifth time.
I think:
• The victim can legally and ethically talk about anything she wants at any time she wants. It's OK with me, and I'll always support her right to do so.
• Her opinion has no special value. Any other woman aged as many years and living decently will know as much as she does about the tenderness of minors, the need to protect them, and the purposes and limitations of criminal justice.
• The fact that a nasty man did nasty things to her many years ago doesn't imbue this woman with relevant insight about forgiveness. The prosecution isn't hers, the prosecution isn't hers: The society didn't give it to her as a compensatory gift, but rather delivered it to him for its own purposes.
> He cannot accept her candor
> about her past - and it all ends
> in tears.
And if I, a distant member of society and a stranger, had dreams and aspirations of intimacy with this woman, your allegory might have a purpose. As it is, the fantasy of connection with her and attachment to her feelings is entirely yours. And your comment buttresses my theory that you in particular are an observer with a love for colorful dramatic narratives.
You are pushing that love too hard. It doesn't belong here.
PS- I saw Natassia in the Starbucks two blocks away when I met with the realtor to buy my place. She was my age and in her 40's by then (2001) –though, in showbiznis style, Wikipedia can't say for sure– and she still looked pretty good. Moved kinda clumsy though, kinda like a soccer mom from the suburbs. There was a convincingly sullen teenager trailing, presumably Quincy's. (Q's had five wives: Charting that family is like tracking the Kennedys.)
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 1, 2009 11:09 AM
CB @ "Jay R, you seem to have the misconception that Mr. Polanski skipped out at an earlier stage of the proceedings. We are past the issue of "charges" - the man pled guilty and was convicted, and has never even bothered to claim innocence."
Wrong, CB.
You seem to have a misconception about the effect of a finding of judicial misconduct in the course of pursuing criminal charges and sentencing. The preservation of the integrity of the criminal justice system is, of necessity, more important than the proceedings against one person.
By the way, if there are no pending "charges", then what was the basis for Polanski's arrest?
I think you threw your mouth into gear before your brain was running.
Jay R at October 1, 2009 11:17 AM
• Bonus Irritations! •
Everybody saw that "rape-rape" thing Marion mentioned, right?
I thought of it when I read that comment from JulieA again:
> I find it quite creepy how you
> seem to get off on describing
> the dirty parts.
Well, at the risk seeming defensive, I'm not the one who "got off"... Polanski is. And now were going to see whether he got off in more ways than one.
I'm not squeamish about sex. I try not to be squeamish about anything that comes from the human heart, because I want to be ready for discussion of every topic it brings to us.
There is a certain kind of brittle American princess who walks around with her pinky extended in an exaggerated summons of decorum.
It's this very eagerness to lash out at someone who even speaks frankly about sex that's at the core of our Whoopi problem.
Whoopi and Scorcese and know exactly how much clarity they're going to face from the media and the American public. They can predict with seven-millisecond accuracy the point in the conversation at which an American will start blinking and twitch their shoulders and say 'I don't want to think about it any more.'
If anyone were to put a microphone to Whoopi's face and describe the assault in clear terms, she wouldn't be able to dismiss the horror with childish locutions like "rape-rape".
PS for JulieA: Sloshing man-goo! Sloshing man-goo! Har!
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 1, 2009 11:34 AM
Such twists - such gilding, Crid!
NOW you say: "The victim can legally and ethically talk about anything she wants at any time she wants. It's OK with me, and I'll always support her right to do so."
How is your earlier comment (just below) even remotely "supportive"?
"Who asked for her candor (after the trial)? It's ridiculous (and misogynistic) to suggest that a rape victim gets brownie points for talking about these painful events at the loud, indiscriminate volume which modern media enables."
Once again, you say: "The fact that a nasty man did nasty things to her many years ago doesn't imbue this woman with relevant insight about forgiveness."
And once again (I think!) I reply: the fact that she was Polanski's victim obviously gives her a ring-side insight into HER forgiveness of Polanski for this crime against her as the story unfolds even today.
And a love of "drama" is not a female preoccupation, Crid.
Jody Tresidder at October 1, 2009 11:35 AM
LS, thanks for writing a well-reasoned and civil reply. I owe you a response, but I don't have time to write it now... I'll try to get to it tonight.
Cousin Dave at October 1, 2009 11:43 AM
And a love of "drama" is not a female preoccupation, Crid.
If it were, you wouldn't argue with everyone with a pulse here.
You also wouldn't say one thing here, and disagree with yourself in another post that you know most people have quit paying attention to:
Me:
> So, no matter how much I
> scream, yell, beg for him
> to stop, if a man gets me into
> his apartment that is an
> invitation for sex?
Crid:
Right. If you should have been alert, and decided to set your caution aside because you're such a delicate, trusting, open flower of a little girl, I'll find it hard to care. You were going to get hurt soon anyway, and badly.
Here:
Well, y'know, times have changed. I think that nowadays, everybody understands that just because you've filled a 13-year old girl with alcohol and methaqualone doesn't mean you can then have all the anal sex with her that you want.
So Crid...which is it?
-Julie
Julie at October 1, 2009 11:48 AM
Jody, Jody, Jody...
There's a difference between supporting and listening. I support the right of Trisha Yearwood to have concerts in basketball arenas. Silly people like country music. I just don't have to listen. I don't think more of Trisha Yearwood just because other people like her music. She is not, in my estimation, worth hearing. I don't care whose boots her bed have been under or whatever.
And by the way, and for the third time, who did ask this victim for candor? How was the request worded? Did someone come up to her and say "You'll be a better person if you speak loudly about intensely private matters"?
> the fact that she was Polanski's
> victim obviously gives her a
> ring-side insight into HER
> forgiveness
Her forgiveness is not of interest.
I've said it over and over but you just can't hear the difference between the right to speak and not caring what someone says. Why is this so hard to understand?
Because you have a womanly fascination with interior conditions. Prager says the most remarkable coincidence in the English tongue is the similarity of "mother" and "smother". You're want to choke the rest of us to silence as this woman speaks because she was there, man....
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 1, 2009 12:24 PM
>>And by the way, and for the third time, who did ask this victim for candor? How was the request worded? Did someone come up to her and say "You'll be a better person if you speak loudly about intensely private matters"?
Crid,
Helluva lot of folk have been involved in this "intensely private matter" - from the moment the police became involved over 30 years ago.
Your "intensively private..." phrase is completely potty in the circs.
I cannot supply you with the names of news editors of the various media who have approached this woman for interview then - now - or every time there's been a new angle on Polanski's flight in the interim.
I imagine the pitch goes: "oh, so you were the actual teenager Polanski raped? Goodness gracious - smashing! - we would love to hear your side!"
(I mean, how far do you want me to go here, Crid?)
Jody Tresidder at October 1, 2009 12:49 PM
@JayR:
Actually, CB IS correct. Polanski's guilt or innocence is not in question here or anywhere. He's already been convicted of the crime and even admitted it...and in fact BRAGGED about it on the record. He skipped town prior to sentencing and has been essentially living as a "fugitive", quite comfortably I might add, for the last 30-odd years...his arrest was so that he could face extradition back to the US, even if it is only for a paltry 40 days or whatever.
Not sure what your point is/was, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by asking, "Are you actually defending this creep?"
Beth at October 1, 2009 12:53 PM
First of all, are "-Julie" and "JulieA" the same person? Duzzen madder, I'll offend anybody.
> and disagree with yourself in
> another post
The consistency and broad applicability of my principled thinking are the stuff of legend. Graduate schools of philosophy throughout the world send unbidden invitations for fellowships and colloquia in the hope that I can, through the sheer power of example which my conversation provides, lead their scholars to a lofty new plane of erudition and articulation. I just don't have time.
> So Crid...which is it?
The first passage concerns how I think society should respond to a grown woman who thinks she can act like a naive little girl. When the person involved really is a little girl, I think we should respond differently.
And that's the point of both comments. (As regards your citation of the second, I don't think you quite understand the intent.)
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 1, 2009 12:59 PM
> I mean, how far do you want me
> to go here
Plow on until it makes a lick of sense.
The 'intensely private matter' was her feelings. The public part was well-completed and long over... Except for the part where Polanski did hard time.
Jody, you're a walking, talking, blog-commenting carnival attraction of illusion by sleight-of-hand and distortion by funhouse mirrors. I feel like a teenage kid who spends too much of his summer job money going back to the county fair again and again, because he can't understand how that one clown does the trick with the Seven of Hearts.
You cannot hear me say this:
I don't care what she thinks.
In Jody language, that reads as:
P u38'q ofud wxrw mgr ucbtws.
But I really fucking mean it, Jody. KNOW THIS, OK? Put it on a goddamn bumper sticker: P u38'q ofud wxrw mgr ucbtws.
Fo' shizzle.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 1, 2009 1:14 PM
Beth @ "Not sure what your point is/was, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by asking, "Are you actually defending this creep?" "
Try to keep up, will ya'?
Go ahead and quote anything I said that could be viewed as "defending" Polanski.
Maybe you should read the newspapers and the analyses of legal experts who project that the case against Polanski (i.e., whatever charges are pending) will very likely be dismissed?
Try to get up to speed before you careen into traffic.
Jay R at October 1, 2009 1:16 PM
And by the way, if you concede so readily that the shallow-smile producers are pandering assholes, why are we to admire the 'candor' they exploit?
And by the way, why is it candor?:
candor: Definition from Answers.com
candor n. Frankness or sincerity of expression; openness. Freedom from prejudice; impartiality. [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin,...
Are you expecting she'll say something spectacularly impartial?
That's Oprah-style feminine magic.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 1, 2009 1:21 PM
>>I don't care what she thinks.
But, Crid, - you care enough to comment - in detail, in great sneer-dripping detail - on the way she appears when she's thinking about whatever it is you don't care about?
As you wrote earlier: "...she was the loving Mom strolling serenely into the richly-golden, lightly-windblown sunset. As a Pac-island-style sarong fluttered gently around her steady, contemplative gait, she gazed winsomely at an unseen horizon of contentment stretching behind the camera, while young children gamboled by the waterline in innocent, cheerful ignorance of the nightmare this woman had suffered... etc. etc."
Jody Tresidder at October 1, 2009 1:42 PM
>>And by the way, why is it candor?:
candor: Definition from Answers.com
candor n. Frankness or sincerity of expression; openness. Freedom from prejudice; impartiality. [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin,...
Oh Crid, I just love that about definitions!
You know, the way they helpfully show the various legitimate nuances of a single word!
And this fascinating stuff is never more than a click away.
It's a modern miracle, if you ask me.
Jody Tresidder at October 1, 2009 2:00 PM
Right. That was mockery on my part.
You want to pretend there's some 'candor' involved... That her hard-won forgiveness has special meaning, and should bear attention than, say, Amy's forgiveness. (Or lack thereof.)
I don't think so. Indeed, it was her appearance (the lighting, the setting of the interview) that stuck with me.
I can't recall what she actually said. But in venues like that one, it doesn't matter. Such telecasts are the mechanism by which Tressiderian Girly Thirsts are quenched.
PS- It's a modern miracle, if you ask me.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 1, 2009 2:03 PM
> you care enough to comment
Right. That was mockery on my part.
You want to pretend there's some 'candor' involved... That her hard-won forgiveness has special meaning, and should bear attention than, say, Amy's forgiveness. (Or lack thereof.)
I don't think so. Indeed, it was her appearance (the lighting, the setting of the interview) that stuck with me.
I can't recall what she actually said. But in venues like that one, it doesn't matter. Such telecasts are the mechanism by which Tressiderian Girly Thirsts are quenched.
PS — I'll always hate you for this blood:
> It's a modern miracle, if you
> ask me.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 1, 2009 2:05 PM
Bad edit--- sorry Amy
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 1, 2009 2:05 PM
>>Are you expecting she'll say something spectacularly impartial?
Seriously, what's it to you what I expect her to say, Crid?
You don't even care what she thinks.
Jody Tresidder at October 1, 2009 2:15 PM
Whatever it is, it's enough that you expect me to admire her candor... Gotta be sumthin' under there...
Besides, I'm still smarting from that "modern miracle" thing. You already won the 'impartial' point.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 1, 2009 2:21 PM
>>PS — I'll always hate you for this blood:
Wow - what was THAT all about, Crid?
Was it an unfinished thought? I admit I'm genuinely intrigued (and the other topic is pretty much reduced to lint already - unless you disagree, natch.)
Jody Tresidder at October 1, 2009 2:33 PM
Your parry did its job, that's all. I hate it when you win even a smaller point.
And yes, we're pretty much at the end of this. You could post the cure for cancer or Osama's GPS coordinates here at this point and no one would notice.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 1, 2009 3:33 PM
Jay R, as kind as you are to worry about whether or not my brain is running - I know it's certainly something I wonder about you when I read most of what you write - I assure you that my profession (criminal defense attorney) qualifies me to comment on plea bargaining practices. I am all too well aware that many, many plea bargains do not actually represent guilt, but rather a calculated decision not to risk a jury's caprice over trumped-up charges. The manifest injustice that we subject people to under the laws and procedures of this country are truly shameful, but don't get me started on that.
However, this was simply in no way a case of prosecutorial bullying - if anything, their more-than-sweetheart plea agreement of 42 days demonstrates how sympathetic they were to this child rapist. As others above have noted, the man NEVER claimed to be innocent, and the evidence was uncontroverted that he did indeed drug and forcibly violate a 13 year old girl. Far too many people are victims of our legal system, but Roman Polanski is definitely not one of them.
CB at October 1, 2009 4:30 PM
Sorry for the typo.
CB at October 1, 2009 4:31 PM
Jay R, are you aware of this?:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/01/polanski.prosecutor.admits.lie/
The (ex)prosecutor who raised the questions of judicial misconduct has admitted that he lied and made the whole thing up.
Polanski was a rich & famous man with the best lawyers money could buy. If his legal team had proof of judicial misconduct, he should have fought it in California, not as a fugitive from justice in France.
I'll add that as far as I'm aware, judges are NOT obligated to go along with deals made between prosecutors & defense attorneys. If the deal doesn't seem reasonable to him, he has the discretion to modify it or reject it, because he's the judge.
Martin at October 1, 2009 11:02 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/defending-polan.html#comment-1670554">comment from Crid [CridComment @ gmail]Bad edit--- sorry Amy
Amy is in book hell, this portion of which she hopes will end sometime on Friday.
Amy Alkon at October 1, 2009 11:54 PM
Now we see Polanski being defended by the Hollywood wankers.
Wasn't the Michael Jackson love-in enough for these perverts?
This year has been nothing but wave after wave of nausea.
gwallan at October 2, 2009 2:08 AM
The Roman Polanski defenders provide an insight into the self-absorption and moral blindness of a large section of the population.
Basically, if something bad happens it doesn't matter so long as the victim is not someone you know or are close to. And if the perpetrator is someone you identify with or admire, then the crime can simply be ignored or explained away. Who cares about the suffering of people you will never know, so long as you can preserve a comfortable worldview and never face any unpleasant truths?
Of course, if any of the apologists' had their own daughter drugged, raped and sodomized they would be unlikely to say "No worries dude. You produced some good movies. Don't sweat the small stuff".
Nick S at October 2, 2009 2:57 AM
If a Catholic priest was being pursued over a sexual assault 30 years ago, the same people defending Polanski would be the first to call for his head.
Thank goodness for our wonderful secular elites! They are making the world a better place for all, and safer for children too!
Nick S at October 2, 2009 3:14 AM
@JayR: Let's try this again...your posts didn't make clear (at least to me) what point(s) you were trying to make, hence my giving you the benefit of the doubt and asking you. Since you obviously took offense to even the implication that you might have been defending the guy, I'm going to infer that you are, in fact, with the very vocal majority of us here who believe he's a creep. That a fair statement?
Reason I had a hard time "keeping up" was that you seemed to be, ok, were, starting from an incorrect premise when you mentioned "pending charges" and asked what the basis for RP's arrest was. The charges aren't "pending." That part of the trial is over. The bandwagon upon which the shameless Hollywierd crowd is
jumping onto would be only slightly less rickety if that were indeed the case. Because then it would be a matter of "Is he actually guilty of this crime or not?" And yes, acquiring a conviction 30 years after the crime has been committed, if the accused was maintaining his innocence, and the alleged victim wanted to be done with it *would* be an enormous uphill battle for the prosecution team....BUT that is not at all the case here...From both a legal and moral standpoint, his supporters don't have a leg to stand on.
Beth at October 2, 2009 5:06 AM
Nick S: Excellent points, all. If this guy were a "nobody", he'd be just another disgusting pervert....the fact that he's a bigwig in Hollywood gets him a pass (in their eyes).
Beth at October 2, 2009 5:09 AM
> If a Catholic priest was being
> pursued over a sexual assault 30
> years ago, the same people
> defending Polanski would be the
> first to call for his head.
Fascinating point. If it's true it might be because the Catholic inebriant is trust, while the Hollywood mickey is methaqualone. Hollywood gives people weird ideas about the importance of sexual sophistication; in that respect, Julie is right about the fight we're having in the other thread.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 2, 2009 8:22 AM
What I mean is, Hollywood is envious....
As Reynolds said this morning, showbiz is having a bad year (Jackson, Polanski, Letterman...).
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 2, 2009 9:37 AM
My stepdad forgave his father for raping him (true story)
But I dont give a fuck. It's not a forgivable act.
Ppen at October 2, 2009 5:25 PM
My stepdad forgave his father for raping him (true story)
But I dont give a fuck. It's not a forgivable act.
Ppen at October 2, 2009 5:25 PM
Sorry for the double post, new computer.
The victim needs to forgive in order to move on with their life.
That doesnt mean I have to.
Ppen at October 2, 2009 5:30 PM
Purp, adore you.
Curious, though nunnamy beeswax: Was the stepdad's 'father' a real father or a stepfather himself?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 2, 2009 6:19 PM
What showbizness needs right now is a program of rigorous absitnence!
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 2, 2009 8:27 PM
Anybuddy still in here? Great. Read this, especially the subtitle, and give me an answer: Whaddya mean we, paleface? What do you mean society, redcoat?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 12:59 AM
It's true that the fact that the victim has forgiven the perpetrator is immaterial to whether or not they should be brought to justice.
We don't punish people based on the whim of the victim. 'Oh well, the victim is a forgiving person so you get off lightly'. Or 'sorry, the victim hates your guts and is hungry for revenge so we must torture and kill you'. You commit the crime, you do the time, regardless of the wish of the victim. The law is there to protect the whole community.
And in some cases the victim may choose to forgive the perpetrator because they no longer wish to carry around a lot of hurt and anger. That doesn't mean everyone else has to do the same.
Nick S at October 3, 2009 3:37 AM
It was his real father.
Ppen at October 3, 2009 11:25 AM
Meet me for a cabernet someday. Or write a book or something.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 11:51 AM
Helllll-llllooooo Jody Tresssider!!!! Are you still out there? I trust you read today's L.A. Times! Turns out the victim may have known a lot more about forgiveness than I thought! She might have known five hundred thousand things more!
____________________________
Roman Polanski said he'd pay to end victim's lawsuit
The Oscar-winning film director agreed to give the victim in the child-sex case $500,000, court documents show, but it's unclear if he did.
By Harriet Ryan and Joe Mozingo
October 3, 2009
Roman Polanski agreed to pay the victim in his child-sex case at least $500,000 as part of a civil settlement, but then failed to live up to the terms of the agreement, according to court filings reviewed Friday.
The documents leave open the question of whether the fugitive filmmaker has ever paid the money he promised in the confidential 1993 settlement with Samantha Geimer, but a change in her approach to Polanski in subsequent years suggests they may have resolved the issue.
_________________________
Well, OK then.... THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED!
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 5:05 PM
>>Well, OK then.... THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED!
No need to shout, Crid.
The victim (to whom I, for one, have been listening from time to time) has long confirmed there was a settlement - but has always said that the terms were confidential.
I always assumed it wasn't peanuts.
(And I thought we agreed she was not "impartial" in all this, anyway?)
Jody Tresidder at October 3, 2009 5:42 PM
Sorry. I'd had some sake earlier today. So my excuse is that I've been drinking.
IJS, doesn't this diminish the instructive preciousness of her "forgiveness"?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 6:59 PM
...doesn't this diminish the instructive preciousness of her "forgiveness"?
Crid,
Since Polanski skipped sentencing, I imagine the settlement certainly helped the victim to feel personally redressed.
But as you've said many times in this thread, you care not one whit what she thinks.
Jody Tresidder at October 3, 2009 8:09 PM
I cannot wrap my head around anyone thinking that it is acceptable for a grown man to have sex with a 13 year old girl under any circumstance. It wasn't consensual. In her grand jury testimony she stated that she was fearful and that she said no. How could anyone justify his actions because he lived a tragic life or was a great film maker. I have seen some of his work and I have not seen anything so wonderful that I think it gives him a pass to rape a 13 year old. I have a 12 year old daughter and I would have killed him myself.
Kristen at October 3, 2009 9:10 PM
> But as you've said many times in
> this thread, you care not one whit
> what she thinks.
Apparently that's starting to sink in. And golly, I guess if private arrangements are always going to make those things go away, you're relieved of the chore of being concerned with the "forgiveness" of victims.
Because it's a private contractual matter, kind of like for the gal that Kennedy killed driving drunk:
The Kopechne family did not bring any legal action against Sen. Kennedy, but they did receive a payment of $90,904 from him and $50,000 from his insurance company. The couple later explained their decision to not take legal action by saying that ‘We figured that people would think we were looking for blood money.'
Got that? It's important to be clear: Even though the family received 'payments' of $140,000+ in 1969 currency, you must never presume that it was blood money.
That would be wrong.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 9:26 PM
Wonderful news, Crid!
I've figured out how we can end this - with neither of us losing face.
We both agree Polanksi's victim is shameless, right?
Obviously, I think this is terrific and you - after 6,748 comments on the matter - simply don't care!
Okey dokey?
Jody Tresidder at October 4, 2009 10:23 AM
It's not that I wanted the woman to be ashamed... After all, what's in her heart isn't of interes......blahblahOK OK we're done.
Keep yer powder dry, sailor.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 4, 2009 12:48 PM
To truly conclude, let me congratulate you on the spelling of your final query... Like a panhandle drawl from a Belgian in Dallas, it was handsomely idiomatic, the stuff of convincing assimilation. Faked me out of my shoes.
People in Indiana really talk like that.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 5, 2009 2:45 PM
Leave a comment