Saturday, April 19, 2014
street news, views and stories of justice and injustice
Follow me on Twitter

Search WitnessLA:

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Meta


Chasing Roman Polanski: A Prosecutorial Reality Check

September 28th, 2009 by Celeste Fremon

roman-polanski-in-wing-collar

What can Steve Cooley’s office be thinking?
First Deborah Peagler, then Bruce Lisker, and now this bizarre, off the rails chase after Roman Polanski.


But before we talk about the great public safety threat posed by film director Polanski, here are some of the threats to public safety that actually occurred Los Angeles over the weekend:

A six-month old baby and his mother were shot in the head on Sunday in Van Nuys. The father was wounded too, but not as seriously. The baby died.

A 26-year old man hit and killed a pedestrian in a Woodland Hills crosswalk after the man took off following an attempt by CHP to pull him over on a routine traffic stop. The man also fired on officers and was eventually taken into custody by SWAT.

There was a double murder in Canoga Park on Saturday morning.

There was a fatal hit-and-run in Boyle Heights on Friday night in which a woman was killed.

A 25-year-old South LA man was shot and critically wounded
at his birthday party on Saturday.

Sunday morning a dead person was found hanging from a tree at Hollenbeck Park.

And this was a comparatively quiet weekend.


So, in this bad budget season when every city, county and state agency is in a fiscal crisis, where is our city’s prosecutorial effort and money going?

Obviously, you know the answer: The DA’s office is spending the big bucks extraditing Polanski from Switzerland on a 31-year-old U.S. warrant charging that he had sex with a minor, a case that has already been badly compromised by alleged judicial misconduct and possibly by prosecutorial misconduct. Moreover the victim, Samantha Geimer—now a mother of two in her 40′s—has asked publicly and repeatedly for the charges to be dropped—not for Polanski’s sake, but for her sake.

Just to remind you of the facts: in 1977 Polanski allegedly drugged and raped then 13-year-old Samantha Geimer.

However, in order to avoid putting the young teenager through any more of the invasive media circus that a celebrity rape trial would have brought, her family agreed that her interests would be best served by the plea bargain that had been worked out between Polanski’s attorney, Doug Dalton and the Assistant DA prosecuting the case, Roger Gunson. Polanski would be sentenced to a 90-day psychological evaluation at the state prison at Chino. In return, Polanski agreed to plead to the lessor charge of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor,” and all seemed ready to move ahead toward a resolution.

But then Judge Laurence Rittenband thought things overand decided that the plea bargain wasn’t what he had in mind—and rescinded the deal. The judge also reportedly talked over possible sentences with a reporter, and supposedly made public remarks about his intention to see that Polanski was locked up for the rest of his life. It is also alleged that an LA prosecutor who was not on the case, pressured Rittenband to yank back the deal.

In reaction, to what appeared to be a life-sentence coming his direction. Polanski fled the country.

In the years since, several efforts have been made to settle the case by dismissing the charges. Gunson, the original prosecutor, and Samantha Geimer, Polanski’s victim, both pushed for dismissal of all charges so that the matter could be put behind everyone.

There was one unsuccessful attempt at a settlement in 1997.

In 2003, Geimer wrote an impassioned Op Ed
for the LA Times asking for an end to the case.

Again, in early 2009, Geimer filed a very strongly worded declaration that urged the charges to be dropped in the clearest of terms—for her sake.

What does the DA’s office imagine is going to be accomplished for the public good with this expensive spectacle it has triggered?

What Roman Polanski did was morally reprehensible and a crime.

But the DA’s Javert-like pursuit of the director across the world all these years later—when the victim has pleaded for him not to—is starting to seem worse.


PS; As I was preparing to post this material, I read Patrick Goldstien’s Column One story for the LA Times on this same subject.

He writes:

“….at a time when California is shredding the safety net that protects the poor and the unemployed, not to mention the budget of the public school system, you’d hope that L.A. County prosecutors had better things to do than cause an international furor by hounding a film director for a 32-year-old sex crime, especially one that Polanski’s victim wants to put behind her.”

Yes, we would hope.

Posted in crime and punishment, District Attorney | 112 Comments »

112 Responses

  1. Kevin Says:

    I have no sympathy for Polanski at all. He deserves to serve time.

  2. WTF Says:

    Polanski drugged and raped a child, opps “allegedly”, and we are supposed to give him a break because of his celebrity?. It’s about time justice is sought.

    I have heard of many abused women not wanting to press charges against their abuser, but we sure as hell don’t let that be the deciding factor for not prosecuting the abuser.

    I am surprised Celeste would NOT want us to prosocute child molesters because the victim’s trauma.

  3. Celeste Fremon Says:

    I appreciate both of your opinions on the matter. And I don’t have one shred of sympathy for Polanski either. He drugged and raped a 13-year old. There’s no nice bow you can put on child molestation. And there is no possible excuse.

    But two things are persuasive to me here about the case (not the man). First, and most significantly, are the statements from Geimer, which I recommend that you read before you dismiss them as classic backpeddling on the part of the victim. (There are links in the post.)

    The other thing is the existence of what appears to be blatant misconduct on the part of the judge and, also, on the part of the prosecutor’s office, if the accusations are correct. (Albeit not on the part of Polanski’s original prosecutor who seemed to be trying to be sensitive to the wishes of the victim and her family who were hoping to preserve Geimer’s anonymity thus wanted the plea-bargain, to keep the case from going to trial.)

    In addition, Polanski settled a civil suit brought by Geimer out of court, so she has had some measure of legal retribution. Plus he has been barred from living and working in this country for more than 30 years, with the constant threat of arrest. Morally, he deserved a lot worse. But, given the whole picture, ¡Ya basta! Enough is enough.

    By the way I suspect this is going on precisely because of Polanski’s celebrity.

    This case feels like one more time that the DA’s office will move heaven and earth not to have to examine it’s own house.

    At least that is how it strikes me today.

  4. Sure Fire Says:

    From someone who handled his fair share of these types of crimes…Total Bullshit Celeste, what are you thinking, have you lost your mind?

    This child was 13 years old, go to The Smoking Gun and read the testimony, it’s sickening what this pedophile did and no other word can come to mind when you describe his actions even later. He copped out more than once to doing exactly what was “alleged”! How you can try to soften a child rape is beyond me!! Polanski raped and drugged a child period, there is nothing “allegedly” about it, he pled out didn’t he? After fleeing because he didn’t want to do “years” only “months” for the rape he did what Celeste? He started an affair with a 15 year old, my God what is wrong with you?

    Polanski is a serial child rapist, the worst scum society has to offer and there is no social justice issue here and the only “allegedly” I see are your statements of what the judge and prosecutor might have engaged in. The “plea” deal that his lawyer and Polanski wanted, that you speak of that was pulled back had minimal jail time attached to it. Polanski was in custody 45 days and that was all he really wanted to do!!!

    I truly think you’ve lost your mind with your parting shot, that pursuing him WHEN THEY LEARNED HE WOULD BE SOMEWHERE THEY COULD ACTUALLY HAVE HIM ARRESTED, is starting to seem to you worse to you than his raping a child.

    This is the most pathetic thing I have ever seen you post, absolutely shameful!!!

    I hope he hangs himself and spares us the cost of a trial, all pedophiles should!!

  5. WBC Says:

    “Javert-like” is a good term, which bears further analysis to the underlying cause of Cooley’s obsession with this case. Apart from the obsession with scoring “wins” over justice, the Lisker and Peagler cases being egregious cases in point, and what some speculate is a possible run for higher office, using this celebrity show trial to get his name out there. (Especially since Phil Specter seemed to skate – despite the circumstantial evidence strongly pointing against him. And since he didn’t score a “win” with Michael Jackson, having arguably helped to ruin him.)

    Again, Kelvin, WTF, Sure Fire, the usual suspects, totally miss the point that you, Patrick Goldstein, I, most everyone agrees this was a heinous crime and the man should have served time for it – as parents we can all put ourselves in the girl’s position. (More or less, since how did she get to be alone with him for so long at age 13, there being allegations of over-ambitious parents…still, while some of us may have been more cautious and cynical about Hollywood than they, I give them the benefit of the doubt that they trusted him as a seemingly responsible adult.) But as you detail, when the plea bargain was revoked and it was clear he was to be made an example of as a celebrity, it no longer became a matter of justice but a political football, and he panicked and ran. NOW 31 years later, the fiscal situation and sane priorities make this a vanity obsession and taxpayer boondoggle of Javert proportions.

    The claim as repeated by Sure Fire that this is somehow the first time in all these decades that the DA’s office knew Polanski would be in Switzerland is absurd: he owns a home there and spends a lot of time there, including at other high-profile events like this: he was to receive a life achievement award from the film festival, so this couldn’t be any more public.

    I think that’s the point: the DA wants everyone to know that he is so all-powerful, that the strong arm of his law can reach all the way to Switzerland, to what Cooley (based on his rhetoric and general views, like those he as well as his protege Trutanich, expressed during the recent city attorney election) derides as the “elitist” heights of the international film and celebrity set. And hence, sodom and gemorrah. The man really DOES speak in such broad biblical terms, seeing himself as “slaying the philistine” and such. He’s getting attention all right, but the kind that puts us all as Americans back in the light of being vengeful bullies who put puritanical priorities above reason and the social good.

  6. WBC Says:

    I add to the list of Cooley’s over-the-top vendetta obsessions the ransacking of the homes of Roderick Wright, the recently seated (African-American), Democrat (of course, to earn his special attention) state senator, to determine if he really resides full-time in the home he keeps inside his district, or in his other home. This was never a criminal matter, but at best a civil one; and today’s LATimes clarifies that it would be upto the Senate, not to all-mighty Cooley himself, to determine if Wright had done anything wrong. That it would be an ethical, not criminal, matter. Again, more money and time wasted for political/ personal vendettas of some kind. (I wonder if Wright ticked him off somehow, ran against a Republican friend…?)

  7. WBC Says:

    Reading the story about Wright a bit more carefully, I should clarify that he was running against all Democrats, no Republican mentioned, but that both leading candidates had homes both inside the district and “in more prestigious areas” outside. Residency became an issue to the DA’s office in cases involving officials in Vernon, Bell, Huntington Gardens (the small towns oft-mentioned with shady dealings and lax attitudes toward criminal conduct inside and outside legislative bodies), and was extended to these guys.

    STILL the over-riding issue is, priorities: this would be a matter for the legislature to resolve internally, and aren’t there a lot more pressing priorities/ real criminals and gangbangers in those towns to go after? Like the gang the feds just busted, where those arrested included a self- proclaimed hitman for a TJ drug cartel? Can’t Cooley become more effective with THOSE kinds of things, REAL matters of public good and safety? Getting gangbangers, rapists and murderers out there on our streets NOW, who are not celebrities with a target on their heads; ID thieves, toxic polluters, the stuff we’re paying him for?

  8. CCD Says:

    Celeste, I fully agree with your position. Being a well informed woman, especially one so familiar with crime and victim’s rights….I love that you took this position. It is a waste of LA’s money to be pursuing this after all the factors you listed.

    The injustice here is where all the LA tax $$$ is being spent vs. where it could better be spent.

    I am sure Polanski has been suffering in his own way for the past 32 years for this crime. He’s been publicly humiliated and was arrested while on his way to a lifetime achievement award. He didn’t collect his academy award b/c of this also. I am sure that is torture in its own way and quite honestly a person’s mental prison and negative self-criticism & guilt is so much WORSE than the minor public slap on the wrist if and when he does go to trial.

    Plus, I think some of your readers and commenters are under the delusion that justice would have been rightly served back in 1977. As we have all seen, celebrities get away some crazy crimes (i.e. OJ) ….This being dragged out for 32 years has been more torturous for everyone involved. If nothing more, that would deter other sex crime victims from coming forward for fear of it being dragged out publicly for 32 years…even when the victim is pleading for it to GO AWAY!

    I hope your traditional and conservative readers can somehow grasp the theory of a different form of imprisonment and torture. (And save LA some tax dollars)

    p.s. Question for Celeste, when did berating you b/c of your blog become appropriate behavior? Such hypocrites!!!!

  9. Woody Says:

    Celeste, before I read your post, I responded to a commenter over at Cooper’s, who was defending Polanski. Since your points of view are similar, here’s a tweaked version of what I wrote to him.

    Liberal Commenter in response to my comment on Polanski: Well, Woody, I’m bored, let’s fight. (Then, he proceeds to attack the girl.)

    Liberal Commenter, the girl that Polanski assaulted was thirteen years old at the time!!! Thirteen!!!

    What argument can you possibly have, despite your lengthy comment, that overcomces that point?!

    As we see time and again, liberals are all about women’s rights and preferences unless the women aren’t liberal or upset liberals, then, those women are not only fair game to attack, it’s obligatory to attack them.

    It’s sickening. We’ve seen it as far back as Anita Bryant, with just about every female appointed by a Republican president, with PM Margaret Thatcher, Paula Jones, we saw it with Sarah Palin, and now we’re seeing it with Hannah Giles.

    And, it’s clear that the National Organziation of Women doesn’t consider ladies who are feminine to be feminists, so they join in on the slander and personal attacks. All the while, the Democrats and liberal media either ignore the attacks or join in them themselves.

    Liberals have no standards or morals. They just have causes, and you better not get in the way.

    Yeah, Liberal Commenter, you go on taking up for child predators and molestors by attacking thirteen-year-old girls. It’s the liberal way.

    To add to that, I’m just surprised that Bill Clinton didn’t pardon Polanski on Clinton’s last day in office, as he did other criminals. After all, it was only sex with an underage girl.

    Celeste, I sure don’t remember your being concerned about liberal political witch hunts and prosecutions, such as against Scooter Libby, and now with Democratic investigations attacking and exposing individuals of our CIA.

    And, I’m quite surprised and disappointed, Celeste, that you would be concerned about the resources spent on this matter. It’s not an either-or situation. You do everything that you can on each one.

    Child predators shouldn’t get a pass just because they can get out of the country fast, and potential predators need to know that justice will be served, even if it takes thirty or more years.

  10. Celeste Fremon Says:

    Woody, please read the whole post and my reply in the comments section.

    Those truly concerned about the victim—who should be our first concern along with public safety—do not recommend the course that the DA has taken.

    PS: Anyone who would attack the 13 year old girl victim is an idiot.

    CCD, thanks for your comment.

  11. reg Says:

    Woody – you’re an increasingly depleted sack of shit. “Liberals have no standards or morals” – indeed, you racist little dirtbag, who posts the most absurd lies as a matter of course. You’re not commenting . You’re pissing on people’s shoes. Go to hell.

  12. reg Says:

    Incidentally, for an antidote to Woody’s diseased, fevered natterings, go to Marc Cooper’s blog, read his post on this same issue, read the comments – which TrollBoy has yet to weigh in on in the relevant thread – and it’s evident that Woody is a demented little twit.

  13. reg Says:

    “PS: Anyone who would attack the 13 year old girl victim is an idiot.”

    Do not – I repeat, do not – trust Woody’s characterizations of ANYTHING ! He is a congenital liar – doesn’t have the capacity to speak the truth. Not even a little bit. Just a vitriolic little bigot who will twist any discussion into mortal combat between his Wingnuttia Central POV and some phantom under his bed he imagines to be “liberalism.”

  14. reg Says:

    Incidentally, I don’t buy the Patrick Goldstein argument that “he has already paid a high price.” If a person had no “reputation” or elite status, no one would ever suggest that the fact that they were a nobody suspected of a terrible crime was punishment enough. Loss of status isn’t punishment. Polanksi ran because he could. He has been able to work in his trade – albeit not in Hollywood. I do not at all denigrate anyone for questioning the circumstances of what happened, nor raising questions around his prosecution. That is an essential and totally valid discussion. But those questions aside, Polanski has yet to deal with these charges on the terms that someone who didn’t have his resources would have had to deal with them. Justice – even if its an imperfect justice – isn’t served by turning a blind eye. The question of prosecutorial priorities is valid in the current crisis climate of California’s jurisprudence, but if Polanski is extradited, I’m happy to see it – largely because I don’t like to see elites get away with things average folk couldn’t. I don’t think that’s insignificant in terms of the legitimacy of the justice system. Polanksi is in an excellent position to raise any questions that hover over his case – and the vitriol and stupidity of the Surefire’s and Woody’s is as disgraceful. It certainly wasn’t on my list of issues confronting Californians in 2009, but neither am I wringing my hands over this. And I find attitudes like Goldstein’s – i.e. “he’s paid a price” by virtue of the “infamy” surrounding his celebrity – to be offensive.

  15. reg Says:

    Should have read: “and the vitriol and stupidity of the Surefire’s and Woody’s is as disgraceful AS WHAT THEY PURPORT TO CONDEMN WITH PHONY HISTRIONICS.”

  16. WBC Says:

    I agree with Reg that Goldstein’s statement that infamy means he’s already paid a steep price was ill-advised, and only gives the rabid right of SureFire/Kevin and such a soundbite to seize onto and beat around to distract from the core issue.

  17. Bluescout Says:

    Good grief.

    Celeste…rationalizing leaving P. alone because of a budget crisis in California and all the other crimes going unpunished is…NUTS.

    Polanski was allowed to continue to work and profit and many people in the industry in LA profited by their involvement in his projects.

    Jack Nicholson and Angelica Huston most certainly knew what was going on with the every increasing demand for younger and younger women and acting as host to this debauchery that was just part of the scene. Of course everyone in LA wants the thing to just go away because so many more that Polanski were involved in underaged sexual predation…and no doubt some of this still goes on.

    The forgiveness crap crafted, obviously, by Geimer’s lawyers is just money talking. And proof of that is she was hauled out in 2003, put on Larry King to pimp for Polanski at the time of his release of The Pianist…lawyer in tow who is the same one from all those years ago so clearly on a gravy train.

    This is a woman who was dragged around by her star f****r mama and imbued with same values. She was paid off and no doubt still is being paid off otherwise why would she go on Larry King at the time she did?

    And if she really didn’t want the publicity she would not have “written” this “op ed” piece. How gullible are you all.

    Her exploitation at a young age that got her mixed up with P. has continued. Only this time its the goose that is laying the golden egg at the price of her soul. Certainly, she deserves the pay out. And given the cynical world she was raised in one can understand taking the cash and rather than having to have her body fucked she can just fuck everyone with fiction. She is still giving people what they want– for a price. Why not?

    The ultimate victory–all the legal bullshit notwithstanding–would be to get his ass back in LA and get “done”. Yeah, yeah, Donald Rumsfeld is a bigger criminal but the ethical consequences are the same.

    Whats one 13 year old girl engaging in sex with an adult…whats one 13 year old girl with her head blown off. Whats one more 13 year old being trafficked. GET IT

    Your lead in to the thread, Celeste, the rationale would make Stalin proud. Its INSANE. You have lost sight of what the case is about.

    And frankly I think Nicholson and Huston could be considered accessories.

  18. Celeste Fremon Says:

    Reg, I quite agree about that part of Goldstein’s argument. It’s outrageous.

    By the way, I love how everyone who is outraged at this post chooses to completely discount what Samantha Geimer has said, or rationalize it as a product of her being manipulated or…I don’t know what—instead of treating her as the sober-minded, rational adult she is. My how respectful you are of the person who was actually damaged by Polanski’s reprehensible actions.

    She has NOT forgiven Polanski. That’s being said by people who have clearly not bothered to read the text of her statements. (So much work when when can simply opine loudly without benefit of facts.)

    She holds him accountable for raping her—as she should. But she rightly questions the motives of those who would continue to pursue this case despite whatever damage it has done to her and would continue to do to her and her family.

    Plus judicial misconduct is judicial misconduct, and it is not justified just because the defendant is a slimebag.

  19. Woody Says:

    Celeste, before I wrote what I did, I had read the entire post and then went back to read your comment. I don’t see why you think my comment doesn’t pertain to what you wrote and meant.

    You said that Polanski was an evil-deed doer and then you went on to add a “but.” BUT…! That was enough and it undid all the hand wringing and feigned expressions of outrage that you had you said up to that point.

    Sure, Manson murdered Sharon Tate, BUT….look what else so-and-so did. Or, there are better uses for our funds. Why don’t we just let Manson out and send him to France?

    First, you began with an attack on the girl (typical liberal), who is now a woman, by essentially saying that she felt one way for the trial but says another thing decades later. (BTW, the link you provided won’t load.) BUT, there is no cross-examination of her public statements at this time or exploration as to her motives now. How much did Polanski pay her for “forgiveness and compassion,” or what pressure or rewards were stuck out there by the Hollywod sickos?

    Defendants don’t get to dismiss charges or parole people a couple of decades later. Also, the crime was a criminal crime against the state, for which the state has an obligation to pursue. If something was wrong with the trial, then there is an appeal process. BUT, someone who runs from the law and skips town to another country doesn’t exhibit an appearance of innocence or a get-out-of-jail-free card.

    Second, you smeared the criminal justice system on this particular case. It’s not like Polanski didn’t have enough money for representation at the trial or didn’t get a fair shake, especially when you compare the sentence to what he did. You also blamed the prosecution’s pursuit on his being a celebrity, as though “common people” don’t get charged with rape. Once again, the girl was thirteen!

    My surprise at you isn’t misplaced.

    You clearly express a double standard for Polanski — or you are consistent in that you think criminals need more compassion than jail time. A question that you raise in my mind is this: Are you that into celebrity worship?

    I’m sure there’s a poem in this to make Polanski appear more the victim.

  20. CCD Says:

    Interesting article from the LA Times today. Makes you wonder…are we seeking justice if so…for whom? The victim wants this to GO AWAY!!!! Apparently that’s not LA’s biggest concern….

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2009/09/did-polanski-documentary-spur-polanskis-swiss-arrest.html

    So why did the D.A.’s office suddenly kick itself into gear? Here’s the gist of Wolff’s theory:

    Arresting Polanski is about the L.A. prosecutor’s office’s public relations. Prosecutors ignored Polanski for 30 years because it was a terrible case in which the prosecutor’s office and the sitting judge, in the interest of getting publicity for themselves, had conducted themselves in all variety of dubious ways. But then, last year, ‘Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired’ came out detailing all this dubiousness. So the first motivation for going after Polanski now, as it so often is with prosecutors, is revenge — Polanski and this film makes the D.A. look bad.

  21. Woody Says:

    reg, you engage in personal attacks rather than facts. It’s the liberal way. Go for the person rather than the truth, because the truth doesn’t fit your agenda.

    Please get some professional help.

  22. CCD Says:

    Woody!!! you are an idiot….are you practicing free speech or just pure stupidity??? Have you NOT read what other’s have said about your warped view of reality????

    “First, you began with an attack on the girl (typical liberal)” ??? WTF????

    Liberal or conservative…. you are a closed minded idiot. Spare the conservatives from having to associate with you please. Just makes them look bad. Claim your own ignorant views for yourself…don’t lump yourself into a group of people that are more informed.

    I suggest instead of liberal vs conservatives…you do “reality vs. woody’s slant.”

  23. An Occasional Poster Says:

    Just a reminder- the indictment reads “The People of the State of California vs. Roman Raymond Polanski” not “Samantha Geimer vs. Roman Raymond Polanski.” Justice has nothing to do with the Geimer’s feelings or desires.

    Being one of those people of California, I want Polanski prosecuted to the full extent of law.

  24. Woody Says:

    CCD, you are so typical liberal…attack the person rather than discuss the issue.

  25. An Occasional Poster Says:

    Celeste Fremon wrote: “Obviously, you know the answer: The DA’s office is spending the big bucks extraditing Polanski from Switzerland…”

    With the risk of sounding crass, maybe he’ll do us all a favor hang himself…

  26. CCD Says:

    Woody….guess you didn’t see my post about the LA Times article…somehow your narcissism overlooked the “issue” and only saw the comments about YOU. Go back to reading and comprehension 101…you might have skipped a few steps…like reading things entirely before forming an opinion.

    I love that this is a public website and comments remain posted in plain black & white so all others can see what sort of person you are… so it puts ALL your comments into an ignorant context no matter how far off from the truth it may be.

    please refer to:

    CCD Says:
    September 28th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

  27. WBC Says:

    An update in the LAT by Ryan/Winton, including two sources inside the DA’s office who speak on background, makes clear that this was another case of the DA wanting to hide evidence and bad PR of past prosecutorial misconduct, by keeping the defendant out of sight: but in this case, in a way that benefited him, unlike with Lisker and Peagler who they’d have preferred rot away out of sight in jail. So CCD is right as far as she goes about the embarrassing documentary, but the final impetus/ challenge was two documents filed this summer by Polanski’s own lawyers. (Who in retrospect, must be wishing they had left things alone.)

    In July, Polanski’s lawyers filed 2 documents asking the charges be dropped. “In both, the lawyers alleged that the district attorney’s office in effect benefited from Polanski’s absence, because as long as he remained a fugitive, officials could avoid answering allegations of prosecutorial and judicial wrongdoing in the original handling of the case.” They alleged the DA’s office hadn’t sought extradition in the previous 30 years because, “if it had, there would have been a hearing regarding misconduct in the case.”

    The lawyers added in a second, later document: “Combined with the fact that no effort has been made to extradite Mr. Polanski, the intent here is clear: invoke a physical absence which they caused and deliberately perpetuate in order to preserve the unconstitutional status quo and never address the misconduct head on.”

    Well, if Cooley has his way, he’ll not only get Polanski back, but also the negative PR of the prosecutorial misconduct alleged in the documentary, these documents, and more. A full-blown circus.

    And we as Americans are already reaping the scorn of Europeans who bemoan that this shows “the scary America,” the old Bush-Cheney American (which Cooley-Trutanich and Sure Fire/Woody/Kevin etc. already mourn, complete with waterboarding), setting back efforts to show the face of the more rational, well-intentioned and civil-minded, compassionate and emotionally balanced America.

  28. Woody Says:

    CCD, when I come in late and have other matters that need attention, I’ll quickly scan the comments, which, naturally, causes me to see my name. That’s hardly “narcissism,” and it’s a natural response to defend one’s self. But, I see that you stay on the liberal track with your personal attacks. You’re consistent.

    Now, in response to the following comment of yours, since you seem to want attention: “I hope your traditional and conservative readers can somehow grasp the theory of a different form of imprisonment and torture. (And save LA some tax dollars)”

    Really, CCD, do bloggers and commenters get to set fines and punishments or has that been done through a long system of representative government? Your problem isn’t with conservative readers. Your problem is with our justice system (plus, you probably hate America, too.) Maybe this is also a case of “France is so sophisticated and the U.S. is so backward.”

    Next, it’s the U.S. taxpayer who is paying for the extradition and the U.S. State Department will review it. Maybe L.A. isn’t forking over any money itself.

    But, let’s save what tax money we can, no matter who is paying it. Hold Polanski totally responsible for the court costs and costs of extradition. I’m sure that such a celebrity with a lifetime film award and Swiss chalet can afford it. His estate should be large enough.

    Plus, it would help to cut costs if the left coast types encouraged Polanski to waive his extradiction challenge and come here willingly so that that money could go to “the children.” (Not that Polanski cares about children…outside of the bedroom.)

    In the end, it’s nice to see that we’re on the same page and that a liberal is so concerned with saving taxpayer money. Now, maybe you should join us in opposing the Democrats’ pork and Obama’s incredibly expensive takeover of U.S. medicine.

  29. Woody Says:

    WBC: And we as Americans are already reaping the scorn of Europeans who bemoan that this shows “the scary America,”….

    Oh, for crying out loud. WHO CARES what Europe thinks of us. They’re just envious, anyway, plus our system of freedom, opportunity, and democracy overshadows their systems.

    This is more “hate-America” from the left, I suppose.

    Will you guys on the left start thinking rationally and stop those knees from jerking?

  30. CCD Says:

    ASS-U-ME on random tangents that doesn’t address the issue:

    “Your problem isn’t with conservative readers. Your problem is with our justice system (plus, you probably hate America, too.)”

    Go take your psych meds for the day…its starting to be pretty obvious what’s wrong with you.

  31. Woody Says:

    Still unable to respond with nothing other than a personal attack, huh, CCD? Oh, it would help, too, if you read all the points of my comments. If you did, then I ASSUME that you had no counter arguments.

  32. CCD Says:

    Three points focusing on the issue:

    1—”Nevertheless, some believe the arrest of the 76-year-old Academy Award winner could lead to a resolution that will allow him to once again travel freely.

    “I think he will finally get his day in court,” criminal defense attorney Steve Cron said, “and there’s a good chance his case will be dismissed or the sentence will be commuted to time served.”

    Meanwhile, Poland and France intend to make a joint appeal to Switzerland and the United States to have Polanski released from his detention, Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski told the Polish news agency PAP. Sikorski said he and French counterpart Bernard Kouchner also plan to ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to offer Polanski clemency.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090927/ap_on_en_mo/eu_switzerland_polanski

    2—”It seems to me very odd that America, which calls itself a Christian country, is so entirely lacking in the ability to forgive,” says Harwood, who also collaborated with Polanski on Oliver Twist.

    “We are talking about something that happened a very long time ago and which the girl concerned does not herself wish to pursue in the courts.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6240485/Roman-Polanskis-friend-Ronald-Harwood-calls-on-Americans-to-show-forgiveness.html

    3— Everyone agrees, Polanski committed the crime and should be punished. Forgiving him for a crime b/c of his celebrity is wrong. But wasting our $$$ so we could slap him on the wrist for a 32 year old crime. Waste of the public’s money. The law should be focusing on criminals who show a true threat to the public.

  33. reg Says:

    “the rationale would make Stalin proud. Its INSANE.”

    The author of that comment is, in fact, the insane one. Stalin? Really? What cob-webbed recesses of a disturbed mind could produce such nonsense. Also, there’s been talk about “attacking the victim” but no one has attacked the victim with quite the gusto that “BluesScout” has. I think the right-wing histrionics, bullshit “politicalization” of variant opinions and extreme vitriol on display here are (1) typical and (2) a disgrace.

    Woody – you honed the personal attacks with your very first deranged ravings on this, accusing liberals of having no morals. Go to hell. You’re a foul little idiot.

  34. mrs. salazar Says:

    Celeste, send Woody to his room. If he cannot control himself, then you must be held accountable as his guardian.

  35. Joe Says:

    I would imagine that the prosecutor is just looking to get himself some attention. Finally nabbing Polanski would do that for him.

  36. Sure Fire Says:

    Do you ever just tell the truth WBC? Are you a crackhead who hits the pipe just before posting? I never said it was the first time the DA’s office knew where he was and grabbing someone in another country isn’t something you can do without precision timing. You’re nothing but a habitual liar and pathetic leftist dolt.

    I could care less what France or any other european country thinks of us. We’re “vengeful bullies” because we want a child rapist brought to justice? French citizens honored cop killer Mumia, they have no moral ground to stand on at any time.

    “PHONY HISTRIONICS” Reg? When was the last time your lame ass investigated a grandfather raping his 12 year old daughter or a step-father making his 12 year old orally copulate him? There’s nothing phony about my feelings on this you demented old fool, you just said it because you couldn’t believe you actually were in agreement with me. You’rea total fraud, that will never change.

    By the way, this victim is far removed from the little girl who was raped more than 30 years ago. This isn’t about opening old wounds, they never go away, much as you’d like that to be a fact.

    Have even one of you read the testimony yet or where Polanski described himself after copping? I doubt it and than goes right into shacking up witha 15 year old in France. Think they were his only kid victims? That’s not how these type people work.

  37. suki Says:

    Its very interesting to read the comments as they go along all day. The focus is no longer on the topic of Polanski and Giemer. Seems like very one is out to be heard or personally attack. The victim here should be the main focus. Once we can all get over ourselves, maybe we can address the issue.

    That being said, I strong agree with reg and CCD. WBC #27 GREAT POINT! Whereas, I don’t even want to give some the dignity the those whose comments are so far from the matter at hand as it would detract from the true focus…Polanski, Giemer, justice and the public at large.

    Celeste, great job for facilitating such heated debates regardless of how “insane” the comments get.

  38. reg Says:

    Misfire – I don’t “agree with you” even when there’s a coincidence of views, because I have absolutely no respect for your phony hysterics and self-regard, which is the root of all your opinion, even when like a stopped clock it might happen to appear “right.” Frankly, I thought your first accusatory, unhinged post was another example of what a foul mess you happen to be.

  39. reg Says:

    Don’t miss Marc Cooper’s latest contribution…kind of messes with Woody’s natterings and raises questions about the “priorities” argument that go to deeper issues than this particular extradition…

    http://marccooper.com/apropos-of-polanski-teen-lifers/comment-page-1/#comment-613754

  40. Su ^_^ Says:

    I’m wondering if the Zurich Film Festival organizer has planned the whole plot with the DA’s office…

    This case also raised attention on Zurich Film Festival…in some sense

  41. reg Says:

    I’m posting this Anne Applebaum column just so someone can accuse
    American Enterprise Institute Fellow Applebaum of sounding just like Joseph Stalin…or neoconservatives of having no “morals or standards.”

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/the_outrageous_arrest_of_roman.html

  42. reg Says:

    The revenge of Eddie Haskell:

    # Woody Says (on Cooper’s blog)
    September 28th, 2009 at 7:03 pm

    Maybe you didn’t see Celeste’s post, Randy. She condemns Polanski and then she and a fellow lefty say that Polanski should be let go. The first is a cover for their real motive of giving aid to the child molester.

    (Nice, Woodster !!!)

  43. Woody Says:

    reg, it gets a little tiresome arguing one subject over two blogs. The point that I was making was to Randy Paul, who said that he had not seen a liberal blogger defending Polanski, so I referenced him to this one, which did in the way that I expressed. On the one hand, they said that he is evil. On the other hand, they say to let him go.

    People truly concerned with child molestation get tough on those who commit those crimes and don’t argue for clemency.

    You have a serious problem of using personal attacks against people rather than add anything of substance to the discussion. It’s the liberal way, and you represent the worst.

  44. Woody Says:

    Also, and an important point, I didn’t say that they were giving aid BECAUSE he was a child molester. They were giving aid TO a child molester, which was a term selected to describe Polansky.

    In no way would a rational person (not you) interpret my comment as saying that Celeste favors child molestation. However, I think that Polansky’s celebrity and accomplishments blinded her to the seriousness of his crime and that he should be brought back to face the justice system that he flaunted when he ran.

  45. Woody Says:

    Let me add what Marc Cooper wrote:

    Polanski’s arrest should stand for the simple principle of equal justice before the law, a laughable notion when one reads the story above about a 13 year old kid –the same age of Polanski’s victim– getting a life sentence for the same crime that Polanski committed and for which he eluded all punishment. But every little grain of sand helps.

    If Goldstein and others want to cry alligator tears over the “waste of money” in pursuing Polanski, let them refocus their compassion and their outrage on the teens locked away for life and for the weekly torching of public funds in absolutely asinine vice sweeps.

    No celebrity worship there. Celeste can do better, and I bet that she has second thoughts after reading the comments.

  46. WBC Says:

    Curious how Woody is using Marc Cooper as his authority to refute Celeste, “dopey” Goldstein (Cooper’s words) etc. This time it’s Cooper who’s utterly dopey (not that Goldstein isn’t when he says that Polanski has suffered enough – that dilutes the substance of his own argument): that somehow because he sees it as a waste of money to have the vice squad arresting hookers every Sat night on Sepulveda in Van Nuys, only to have them go free the next day, and other injustices he cites, it’s “dopey” to say chasing down and making a show trial of Polanski is a waste of money compared to chasing down rapists, predators, hitmen for TJ drug cartels, baby killers and other assorted scum of the earth on our streets posing an imminent danger. Cooper does acknowledge that the DA’s priorities are screwed up but brushes that off as par for the course, which is unfortunately giving him a pass on misusing the tremendous power of that office. A number of grave misjusices have been done, which even he with his anti- “elitist” views would agree on, like Lisker and Peagler who are poor. (Per my comment #27, as born out by evidence.)

  47. reg Says:

    “their real motive of giving aid to a child molester”

    Pretty straightforward. Pretty disgusting.

    Woody can’t take responsibility for what he says. Like a small child who whines when he’s confronted with what he’s done.

  48. reg Says:

    And of course, Woody digs his hole even deeper while attempting to climb out of it:

    “Polansky’s celebrity and accomplishments blinded her to the seriousness of his crime “

  49. Lord Reptor Says:

    If anyone is dopey here, it’s Woody. Strong and pure like cow manure from Lake Woebegone.
    He’s a disinformationist who carries water for the glovèd fist.

  50. John Moore Says:

    I am no fan of prosecutors who use their dangerous powers for personal purposes, but in this case, it simply doesn’t matter who the prosecutor is or what his motives.

    Polanski is a very visible public figure who not only got away with child rape but also was aided and abetted after the fact by Hollywood and any number of sycophants.

    Because of all of that, his prosecution is necessary for the maintenance of justice. Period. It doesn’t matter what the victim wants – Polanski’s crimes were against both her AND society, and society needs to show it will not be tolerated.

    That society engages in other injustices (as Celeste and Marc are fond of pointing out) is simply irrelevant.

    That budgets are tight is simply irrelevant.

    Had he served his time, then he would deserve the opportunity to redeem himself. Instead, the cowardly rapist fled and proceeded to molest another under-age girl.

    Lock the bastard up. To hell with him.

  51. John Moore Says:

    See also Richard Fernandez excellent article on this at Pajamas Media (click here).

    Celeste, the reason I put “click here” is because your blog setup hides links.

  52. Celeste Fremon Says:

    John, I think we should settle it out because of the misconduct issue and all I’ve said above. Given the time and the bungling (and the wishes of the victim), had Polanski not been famous, I believe we would have settled it several years ago.

    Nonetheless, you certainly make a reasoned argument.

    The Richard Fernandez piece was great. Thanks for the link.

  53. Sure Fire Says:

    Reg has no problem with child prostitution with his ACORN support so his head up his ass coments to me is no surprise, he’s one big ass fraud. Way to respond WBC, post your lies as usual and change the subject, typical liberal idiot with no ethics.

    Celeste, your remarks on this whole issue, especially these are reprehensible.

    What Roman Polanski did was morally reprehensible and a crime.

    But the DA’s Javert-like pursuit of the director across the world all these years later—when the victim has pleaded for him not to—is starting to seem worse.

    Pursuing a pedophile is worse than what he did to his victim, you’re nuts Celeste and you and your leftist pals morals are very questionable, not surprising at all. A bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks attemting to sound like you care when in fact it’s obvious you don’t.

    Maybe a group rate to France is available.

  54. Celeste Fremon Says:

    SureFire when I disagree with you I don’t call you names and question your character.

    I appreciate you coming here with your opinions. I do not appreciate it when you come at me with personal attacks and abuse.

    I answered you as one adult to another. I expect the same in return.

  55. WBC Says:

    Misfure, you need reading and comprehension lessons. You just reinforce the fact that while liberals disagree amongst themselves, it’s on matters of substance, while most conservatives are just plain Palin-stupid. We’ve all including Celeste and certainly I, said how reprehensible we think the act was, over and over. No one condones it.

    For those who use the red herring, “don’t give him any special treatment,” ask yourselves, if he were a Joe Nobody, would the DA be interested in him the same way? Would they have had devoted to tracking him on the internet for 30 years as Cooley’s own office claims? (Would the original judge have been pressured by the then-prosecutors to renege on a plea bargain, for a tougher sentence to make an example of him, if he WEREN’T a celebrity?)

    Do you (who use this argument) and the DA’s office honestly mean to say that every statutory rapist IS hounded this way to the ends of the earth til he’s caught? NO – they don’t even test many DNA kits (the County Sheriff, Lee Baca, peevishly stopped testing them altogether til he had made his point on budget cuts he’d have to face, then got back on track sort of): there are rapists and violent felons out on the streets NOW who aren’t being pursued nearly as aggressively, let alone 31-year old cases. This IS a show trial for Cooley, both for his own ego because his office has been proven time and again to value “wins” above all, and would have hidden the “evidence” that is, the defendant, if his lawyers hadn’t foolishly forced Cooley’s hand; as they did with Peagler, Lisker, and countless others.

    Meanwhile, the Times has an editorial supporting extradition, which should make some of you happy (and doesn’t surprise anyone who’s followed their pattern of endorsements, with Jim Newton still through the end of this week anyway, in charge). They do acknowledge the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, but conclude Polanski must return to sort it all out: and indeed, his lawyers will do their best to make a strong case and expose dirty laundry. With the support of many in Hollywood, who have designated Harvey Weinstein as the point man on their public efforts, since he’s very active abroad also. Of course the xenophobes consider anything France says that’s critical of this Javert-like obsession to be a badge of honor, but some of us were glad to finally be able to travel again without the redneck yahoo label, the “puritanical gun fanatic” image personified by Cooley, attached to us.

  56. Sure Fire Says:

    You answered something I posted Celeste? Where was that, I must have missed it? I also missed where anyone responded to other adventures Polanski had with minor females. I also missed where anyone actually said they read trial transcripts or where Polanski spoke of his own criminal behavior.

    WBC, have you read the accounts of what Polanski actually did? He drugged this young girl, gave her alcohol, orally copulated her, sodomized her and raped her. It can also be shown his actions were premeditated. It was a gift from the above that allowed him to plea to only the one charge. In my experience and with an opinion based on that experience there is no way that should have been allowed. Polanski should never have been given such a sweet deal, pleading only to unlawful intercourse witha minor, and his celebrity and loss of his wife should have had no standing in determining the charges, none at all. If I was the I.O. on the case I would have been screaming at the top of my lungs at a decision that allowed sucha deal.

    Post your experience in investigating these types of crimes WBC and I’ll list mine along with classes I’ve attended on topics such as the sexual exploitation of children and the workings of the pedophile mind. I’m looking at this from a hands on perspective, you’re looking at it with your political leanings and disgust with the D.A.’s office peppered throught this and other threads.

    This is where people who think like me and people who think of ways to “soften” what Polanski did, people like you and Celeste, disagree. It’s the words you two have chosen to use that prove that, all i’ve done is point it out. Neither of you have really, at any time, gone to the heart of what he did, why is that? Use any type of misguided and nonsensical rhetoric you choose, throw politics in and your obvious feelings of whatever D.A. policy or representative you want but nothing will take away what took place at Nicholson’s estate or what actions Polanski took to escape his punishment.

    Your viewpoint in fact is laughable, because of how Baca runs his office let’s not be too harsh on a child rapist? That’s what Polanski is according to facts that he’s never denied.

    The judicial misconduct is an allegation, let them investigate it I don’t care, but for you and Celeste to use that “allegation” as a spring board to soften both yours and her use of the terminology that describes Polanski’s crimes in the most correct manner is more a defense lawyer type method of trickery rather than the words of people really concerned about “social justice” issues.

    The only person who deserves justice is that 13 year old girl and society as it still looks at these types of crimes today, and in my opinion based on experience not emotions, Polanski should be put away.

  57. WTF Says:

    I read the words “nuts” when Sure Fire was refering to Celeste, and he is being called out for name calling.

    I constantly read words like “fucking piece of shit” and worse from Woody’s stalker who seems to be suffering from WoodyPhobia and can’t stop arguing with Woody. hahaha

    Where is the Justice?

    Maybe a blogger should write about “blog comment” injustice?

  58. Sure Fire Says:

    Out of curisosity I checked what Polanski’s exposure would have been if he would have been charged and tried for what he actually did. I came up with 28 years but that could be high as it’s based on today’s sentencing laws, and it could also be low.

    With that in mind for any judge or DA to allow a plea that entailed only a few months in custody is crazy. Going with the thoughts some of you have posted about how wrong this “alleged” misconduct was, what do you think he should he should serve if any time at all?

    If I were the DA he’d get charged with everything. He fled, that was his choice and no offer of anything less than a lengthy term should be put on the table. Everything should start over now.

    I also find it odd how much weight is given to the victims forgiveness of Polanski. How long did it take her to come to that point? How many sessions with a therapist did it take, how long until she could trust a man? How much of her childhood was loss due to the actions of Polanski? Are any of you concerned at all for the trauma this “child” had to have suffered? It seems that it’s secondary to your concern for an adnitted child rapist. I haven’t googled anything on the victim but I’m guessing this was no decision she came to very soon after the rape…and sodomy..and oral copulation that Polanski forced upon her.

    Lastly, I know Polanski has admitted to what he did, knows it was wrong but nowhere could I find any actual public apology?

    What would have happened to any other citizen that had committed some atrocious crime and was discovered decades later? Someone not a famous fim maker? Sarah Jane Olsen ring a bell?

    Those in the film community and anywhere else that support Polanski walking should be boycotted. WBC’s attacks on our nation and justice system during this thread are the ramblings of an idiot. That should be an ok term Celeste, it’s how she described me.

    The French have no dog in this fight, they probably call things like this crime… a “date”.

  59. reg Says:

    “I constantly read words like ‘fucking piece of shit’ and worse from Woody’s stalker who seems to be suffering from WoodyPhobia”

    Woody has, since day one that I read his crap, questioned – across the board, and without even having the most limited capacity to discuss hnestly issues on their merits – the character and integrity of people who hold even moderately liberal views, called them Stalinists or “hating America.” Further, he has accused me – like the dirtbag “Surefire” insanely accuses me of supporting child prostitution” – of being a pedophile. Woody’s biggy, of course, is “you’re gay” – which I could care less about, but is shows his bigoted soul. Woody also persisted in posting racist cartoons and making racist comments – overtly racist – during the election . So if you’re offended by calling him a fucking piece of shit, go screw yourself. You’re an idiot playing a stupid double standard game.

    Surefire’s another total ass who can’t approach a discussion without flaming out on his anger issues, but he’s a come-lately to Woody’s World of raving crazies. That this obviously unhinged jerk was a cop is disturbing, to say the least. I’ve met dirtbags like him and they’re all about themselves – and full of shit. Still fuming about Miranda, no doubt and angry at the courts because he, of course, is the only guy in the world who understands the nature of the evil that surrounds us. Also always knows the “facts” about every case because, you know, he’s seen it all before. And we’re all supposed to bow down and thank him for being a twisted, angry asshole on our dime. Bullshit. These are the guys who destroy the credibility of cops and then whine about “everybody hates us.” Yes indeed, everybody with half a brain and who values decent cops hates arrogant, disreputable pricks like you who can do no better than mirror the world of the punks and thugs you so despise. Think about it.

  60. reg Says:

    Also, since gang rape by prison guards and cops has been part of Surefire’s arsenal of taunts and “jokes”, one wonders where his high moral sense suddenly comes from. A tender sensibility that claims anyone who looks askance at pursuit of a 30-year old beef is “insane”, “reprehensible”, etc. My bet is that he’d be on hand to help a cover-up if his buddies in the business dispensed some such form of “justice” to “deserving” parties that the courts might frown on. Otherwise, why would such sick scenarios pop out of his nasty little mind ?

  61. reg Says:

    I have, incidentally, never read a word – not one word – on this blog that suggested cops and prison guards commit gang rape UNTIL THE COMMENTS OF SUREFIRE!

  62. reg Says:

    It’s not just American Enterprise Institute’s Anne Appelbaum – National Review’s young genius questions priorities in the Polanski case:

    ACORN v. Polanski [Jonah Goldberg]
    From a reader:

    Isn’t it interesting that the MSM claimed a week ago that it was too distracted by two wars, health care debate, the economy etc to dedicate resources to cover the Acorn mess, yet they seem to have plenty of time and personnel to give a boatload of coverage to a 60 plus year old pedophile fugitive who hasn’t been in the news for two decades. Yep, that’s more critical to our societal fabric right now….

    (Note: Only yammering imbeciles could believe that the ACORN nonsense threatens our societal fabric any more than Polanski – or that either have much relevance to the country’s future – but that’s what we’re dealing with in Wingnut circles.)

  63. Woody Says:

    reg, you’re so enlightening with all your personal attacks which add no substance to the discussion. Next time that you want to identify someone as a troll, look in the mirror.

    Also, I did sincerely intend for the “child molester” adjective to define the object of the sentence rather than an assumed motive, which was not stated. The statement was straightforward. How you interpreted it was your error. Who is really being dishonest here? Again, look in the mirror.

    Yet, you’re the type who thinks that if he repeats a lie often enough then people will accept it as fact. I suspect that Celeste’s readers aren’t as stupid as your typical Democrats and your friends.

    Oh, I almost forgot, you’re as queer as they come.

  64. Woody Says:

    Oh, this is why I don’t jump on the politically-correct bandwagon about “a certain group,” and I make no apologies for it.

    Andrew Klavan: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7stz35gN44Are You A Racist? A Frank Conversation

    For many years, there’s been one group in the American melting pot that has consistently underperformed in terms of productivity, intelligence and moral behavior. …

  65. Woody Says:

    Nuts. (A term not intended to arouse you, reg.)

    Here’s the corrected link to the above comment.

    Andrew Klavan: Are You A Racist? A Frank Conversation

  66. CCD Says:

    Amazing that everyone is still going around in circles about this. This is just society’s second rape of the victim, first being the physical rape, that the victim has already recovered from and has already sued the criminal and gotten her own justice. however, our continued discussion and focus on this issue continues to violate the victim as well as intimidate every other 13 year old from coming forward with a report of rape for fear of 32+ years of society’s second rape. Drop it!

    For every woman out there and for all those who have daughters, sisters, wives, etc…stop and think for a moment. IF this were you or your daughter, would you still want this be all over the media years and years after??? even if you wanted it to go away. Hope everyone gets off their moral soapboxes and realize you aren’t fighting some righteous cause… this is a person’s real life. The victim had to move to a remote island in Hawaii just to get away from all this bullshit. Read CNN’s story this morning. Society has violated her more in than Polanski ever has. So we should all be ashamed of ourselves…especially those who think “the people of California” want to pursue this. What a load of bunk.

  67. reg Says:

    Here’s a frank observation Woody – you serially post racist garbage. Your homophobia is as rampant as it is ridiculous and weak. And you claimed that Celeste’s motive was to aid a child molester.

    You’re a very bad white whine…

  68. Woody Says:

    CCD, all of the girl’s problems go back onto the shoulders of Polanski. Society’s interest is just another result of what he did. If there is anything positive, maybe the attention will prevent similar happenings.

    - – -

    reg, your comments and observations are so niggling to the subject of the post and the seriousness of the matter. Go police your own kind.

  69. CCD Says:

    So Woody, if and when a female relative or loved one has any sexual crime committed against them…YOU should stand right back up on your soapbox and shine a light on them for all of society to see so they too can “help prevent” this from happening in the future. It’s your civic duty.

    I hope any informed person out there will seek your relatives’ stories and post them for all of us to “learn” from. That sounds like justice to me. Live what your preach or shut the hell up.

    I don’t know of any rapist who would stop from raping after this Polanski story. However, I am confident that there’s a myriad of raped girls and women out there hiding for fear of YOUR KIND violating them again and again for years and years. Your inability to truly look into a mirror to see fault on your own behavior is so morally reprehensible.

    Trust me there’s Karma out there in the world and YOU will reap what you sew. Lets see how you will act then.

  70. WBC Says:

    Celeste, a post I made a couple hrs ago disappeared into your comment-eater: something too painful to repost, but just had to respond to that brainless last attack by Misfire along the usual lines, that I’m “unAmerican” because I’m appalled that a local yokel is managing to get enough PR on this thing to undo Obama’s successes on big issues like getting Europeans and Middle Easterners, Africans and Asians, you know, the world, to begin to set aside its negative image of us fostered by Bush-Cheney, so that we might get cooperation on the MAJOR, vital issues like Iraq, the Middle East, human rights abuses, trying to prevent our planet from being overcome by its own detritus from environmental disregard and so on…

    And how I’m “opposed to the American justice system” because I’m outraged by the repeated abuse of the justice system by this DA’s office not only to grandstand but to treat human lives destroyed as collateral damage in the service of his own “wins.” That usual kind of stuff. IF it’s disappeared for good, just as well, Misfire doesn’t really deserve another reply.

  71. Mavis Beacon Says:

    Any thread where Woody’s name comes up 40 times is way off the rails, but I do want to take some issue with the notion that prosecution of crime should be primarily about the victim. I know Celeste only suggested the victim’s preferences should at least be considered, and I think she’s certainly right to point out that those who would use the victim’s name to bludgeon critics of Polansky’s prosecution are not doing Geimer any favors. However, our system allows DA’s full discretion over who to prosecute for a pretty good reason – society’s best interest and the victim’s don’t always line up perfectly. I generally believe that prosecutions should primarily be based on if society’s interest is served. As a side note, I’d be very interested in a state victim compensation fund, but I have a feeling nobody would want to pay for it. Just my take.

  72. Woody Says:

    CCD, I didn’t say what you said that I did. What I did was to put the blame where it belonged – on the perpetrator, where you didn’t. In your world, society must be to blame for everything bad, including the trauma to victims of crime. I see personal responsibility, not group responsibility.

    I don’t condone public spectacles to hurt the innocent, and I sure don’t like it when the press sticks mircrophones and cameras in the faces of those who just suffered from a loss or crime. However, that is information that many people want and information that is useful in helping us to be aware of potential crimes.

    But, you: Poor O.J. Look what the public put him through.

  73. roy Says:

    i was the victim of a crime once, it took 7 years to go to court by than i wanted nothing to do with it. i was forced to go to trial by threat of imprisonment and felt i was being victimized again. but after i talked to the da and saw the work he was trying to do i realized it was selfish of me these people needed to be punished and brought to justice for everyone not just the crime they did to me. i felt for the girl and understand where she is coming from but this is a serious crime and sounds like he has a history of it and its not a on time mistake.i hope the da isn’t doing it for self serving reasons but even if he is it is still the right thing to do.

  74. Celeste Fremon Says:

    Roy, thanks for your personal comment. It brings another dimension to the discussion.

    WBC, I don’t know where the comment went. It’s not being held for approval and I don’t find it in spam either. At least not in today’s file. I’m sorry about that.

    TO ALL COMMENTERS: This is a complex and controversial issue that deserves discussion—not just because of Polanski’s individual crime, but because the question of prosecuting or not prosecuting points beyond itself to so many other important issues.

    Thus I appreciate the views that have been expressed here—on all sides of the matter.

    I took one position on the Polanski extradition—for reasons that I have outlined. Some of you agreed with me and expanded thoughtfully on the argument.

    Yet, I have also been persuaded by many of the thought-provoking points made by those who feel passionately that it is important to pursue the charges against Polanski.

    ONE THING HOWEVER: Speaking to those on both sides of this and any other question, I would again like to request that the personal attacks cease. I called out SureFire because he aimed his rhetoric at me. But there are others who engage in name calling and personally-aimed flame throwing with the same or greater frequency. (Reg and Woody!)

    There is a clear difference between an angry retort or accusation (“That’s a racist statement.”) and a personal attack. (“You’re a racist.”)

    Let’s keep it to the former and dump the latter.

    I don’t mean to be schoolmarmish, but there is no one here who cannot see that making it ugly and personal only causes a worthwhile discussion or argument to devolve into something that has little value to anyone.

    Thanks for listening.

  75. Woody Says:

    Thank you, Celeste. Let’s hope that reg gets the message.

  76. Woody Says:

    How would the Obama administration protect underage children from child molesters?

    A teacher was told by a 15-year-old high school sophomore that he was having homosexual sex with an “older man.” At the very least, statutory rape occurred. Fox News reported that the teacher violated a state law requiring that he report the abuse. That former teacher, Kevin Jennings, is President Obama’s “safe school czar.”

    …In this one case in which Mr. Jennings had a real chance to protect a young boy from a sexual predator, he not only failed to do what the law required but actually encouraged the relationship.

    According to Mr. Jennings’ own description in a new audiotape discovered by Fox News, the 15-year-old boy met the “older man” in a “bus station bathroom” and was taken to the older man’s home that night. When some details about the case became public, Mr. Jennings threatened to sue another teacher who called his failure to report the statutory rape “unethical.” Mr. Jennings’ defenders asserted that there was no evidence that he was aware the student had sex with the older man.

    However, the new audiotape contradicts this claim. In 2000, Mr. Jennings gave a talk to the Iowa chapter of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, an advocacy group that promotes homosexuality in schools. On the tape, Mr. Jennings recollected that he told the student to make sure “to use a condom” when he was with the older man.

    We need a giant condom to protect the country from Obama’s appointees.

  77. Woody Says:

    Guess if this person is liberal or conservative.

    The View’s Whoopi Goldberg yesterday offered the most outrageous and despicable defense of child rapist and Hollywood director Roman Polanski yet: It wasn’t rape-rape.”

    Ah, for the good ol’ days of listening to nonsense from Barbra Streisand.

  78. Sure Fire Says:

    You’re the first one that throws the FBombs Reg, you don’t know how to debate an issue or have any type of conversation with anyone who disagrees with you where you don’t resort to filth.

    The thing is that I could care less. You are nothing to me but a guy with an ideology based on your inability to look at any issue objectively. You cry constantly here. Give me an opening and I’ll jump up and post based on your own words. You don’t like it than think before you post.

    I don’t think you’re a pedophile Reg, but your take on the ACORN issue was so lame to jump you like I did was well deserved, quit crying and man up, what I’ve said pales in comparison to some of the trash you’ve posted about me and others. Why don’t you just address an issue instead of constantly having to act like a bad ass, or is it so ingrained in you that’s not possible for you to do?

    I don’t expect people like you to care for me Reg, but I can post on things I’ve actually done and seen, I’ve never seen you post anything about your work, I mean beside ACORN shill. You don’t have any standing on the issues far as I can see, you’re just all talk. I’m still sworn and still in law enforcement by the way, that should make you happy, keep giving me those dimes.

    As for the “gang rape” comment go back to it and look what it was in response to, just because it happened a while back you think you can blow it out of proportion from something other than the manner it was posted in? You and WBC sit around and exchange notes because neither of you defend your own comments when you’re challenged on them? You are truly way past normal, even for a resident of the far left corner of the univers. Your own words and attempt to bs the crowd indicts you every time you open your mouth.

    You know Celeste I just edited my response big time because you finally said something about your pal Reg. My bet is that he will continue with his standard way of posting, I’ll try to be nicer.

    That being said, nobody here has commented on the more serious issues I raised which shows how incredibly weak your stands on this issue are.

  79. reg Says:

    Celeste – anyone who posts racist statements serially is a racist. Also people who refuse to take responsibility for their words are cowards. I’ve been harsh, dropped F-bombs and called people morons who exhibited serial moronic tendencies. I’ve also called people liars when they peddled lies. But I’ve never devolved into calling anyone a pedophile or child molester or engaged in gang rape fantasies involving cops and prison guards. That’s a class by itself. I also think that homphobic slurs are beyond the pale – although these cretins are welcome to sling them at me because it’s a signal of just how weak they happen to be. I’ll stand by my assessments of Woody. And Surefire. But these guys are welcome to run rampant and not be called out for what they are.

  80. reg Says:

    Surefire – their are lots of incompetents and wack jobs on the public dime. Stand tall…

  81. dacalicious Says:

    “We do the best we can on every one.” What a facile statement! How about all those rotting, disintegrating rape kits stacked ceiling-high that have never been processed in cases far more violent & heinous than this? (& yes, in the world of non-hyperbole, there are degrees of heinous)How has the prosecutor’s office been coming along with that horrid boondoggle? How do you think an adolescent victim of brutal gang-rape feels knowing that chasing an elderly pervert across Europe who poses no threat to the citizens of Los Angeles takes financial precedence over her and hundreds of other tragedies? Celeste’s point of view is wise, and unencumbered by the need to name-check one’s political prejudices and look for excuses to insult and belittle those who disagree.

  82. WBC Says:

    Still another update in the Times LA Now blog (Andrew Blankstein) on how some of Polanski’s supporters are “in their zeal,” minimizing the criminality of what he did and argue he’s paid enough of a price, hence, undermining the valid arguments on his side. I wish they’d do themselves a favor and stop minimizing the crime, and playing into the hands of those (like Misfire, Woody, bloggers on other sites) who with typical ignorance then extrapolate that “all liberals are amoral supporters of pedophilia and rape, unAmerican,” which is just disgusting, but how they roll.

    Most of us in this blog have concurred: Goldstein repeating such claims (as made by Harvey Weinstein, some European officials and film people) undercut the valid parts of his argument about priorities and abuse of power issues, and the pattern of prosecutorial misconduct from this office which has led to unfair treatment of defendants. (In this case, to Polanski’s benefit to keep him and the tangled history of probable misconduct out of sight, out of mind.)

    And the key fact that if Polanski were NOT a big-name celebrity, but some average joe, he’d have never been pursued after all these years, when there are rapists and murderers out there on the streets now. PLUS the international ramifications which are way over the DA’s head but he brought them down on ours anyway.

    Also, the fact that the victim in this case wants the matter to go away is NOT the over-riding factor to me (or to most who’ve posted here against the DA’s “javert-like” zeal), but is one factor to consider, since very often such cases are pursued when the family or victim demand it. However, that doesn’t mean she hasn’t been scarred by what happened to her; just that reliving it again in the midst of a media circus may do more harm than good at this point in her own opinion.

    Phew, clearly this one has “legs,” and we can expect a huge circus. I’m actually looking forward to getting Polanski back at this point so his lawyers can open up the whole can of rotting worms under the DA’s office.

  83. Sisco Says:

    The girl who Polanski was with, now an adult, wants the case dropped. Said in that HBO documentary film that she’s more annoyed with people fascinated with the case than she is with Polanski! I say if he shows up in the US or if any US agents abroad get a hold of him, arrest him. He does have a debt to pay to our criminal justice system. But to spend a boat load of money trying extradite him, considering the victim herself, now an adult, is no longer even seeking his apprehension? I agree with Celeste. Let’s focus on the here and now. It’s not to say that Polanski should be let off the hook. He can’t come back to America. And don’t think we haven’t deported rapists, even child rapists, before in the name of political expedience. This is just the LA DA’s office showing off. But what do you expect? It’s LA law enforcement. This is at least partly why most people in LA get involved with law enforcement, to begin with. No different than people who want to become actors. They want to be a star.

  84. reg Says:

    Incidentally, one last point on the “comments” issue. I stand by everything I’ve said about Woody and Surefire. They are backtracking, whining and explaining – because they are chickenshit. And they both know they’ve dragged a bit too much of their mental sewage into these threads when they get wound up because someone doesn’t bend to their bullshit – not even a little bit.

  85. Sisco Says:

    I just skimmed through the comments, and without even reading the names of the commentors I can tell that Woody’s been here, just by the fact that we went from Polanski to ACORN.

  86. Sisco Says:

    Woody, do you ever notice how people in the real world just tune you out when you talk about politics? They kind of pretend to agree with you, then you ramble on some more, then they give that disgusted look, and sort of motion as if to say, “ok, got it”. Then, do you notice how they change the subject? They start talking about baseball, or something? Anything to tune out your boring, repetitive monotone political rants? Ever notice how even your family members are doing this to you, now? They used to be the only ones that tolerated it, and would even be willing to discuss politics with you for a few minutes. Now they’re doing the same thing your former peers and friends used to do. They just get nauseous the minute you start going into it. Just wondering if you’ve picked up any of this, Woody.

  87. Ted Lawrence Says:

    You keep repeating this nonsense about alleged judicial misconduct which was also promoted in a recent movie while dodging the real facts.

    The prosecutors in the Polanski case strongly recommended against settling the case and said later that they didn’t even know a settlement was being considered. Several celebrities and politically powerful businesspeople then started lobbying behind the scenes and there were rumors about possible payoffs floating around. Under those circumstances, a Prosecutor from the DA’s office who had served on a committee which heard all of the evidence of the case and had given a recommendation not to settle, contacted the judge letting him know of their recommendation. Ritteband did the right thing under the circumstances which was to say he wouldn’t accept a plea bargain without hearing evidence that it was appropriate. The alternative would have been to declare a mistrial and start over which would have been a huge break for Polanski whose friends were the ones trying to manipulate the system, but Ritteband (after notifying both sides of what had happened) decided to go ahead and hear the case which could have been grounds for appeal if there was really any evidence that he was prejudiced in his conduct. But of course Polanski knew better than to take his chances with the court system and there has never been any other evidence of misconduct by Ritteband or evidence that he was prejudiced against Polanski.

  88. CCD Says:

    Referencing yesterday’s posting on Polanski vs. today’s posting about the Calif. parks, universities, LWOP kids, etc.

    Celeste, have you noticed the sheer volume of comments this post has generated?? Its amazing the amount of angry people so focused on the past that they cannot even get past it. Focusing on yesterday’s issues rather than the future.
    Regardless of which side of the fence a person stands on…its just amazing to see how people are so focused on the negative rather than joining forces to debate what to do for a more positive future.

    Maybe this is how society is…maybe this why we (America via Bush/Cheney) spent so much time, money & resources on revenge, wars, bombs, wild goose chases for WMA that has resulted in nothing, etc. that we no longer can fund for the future. Its a shame that regardless how intelligent your readers are, they still chose to focus on the negative. Can we all just MOVE FORWARD please???

  89. Sure Fire Says:

    You don’t matter Reg and I don’t take back a thing I said and like the true leftist coward you are all you can do is rant like the old deparved and demented loser you are. Posting out of context is lame, and you and WNC are queen and king.

    Again, from beneath that rock you’re posting from you don’t address any issue and only feed your own hate. It doesn’t matter snitch, the lowest people I ever dealt with were snitches like you and no matter what your aged carcas writes that’s as high as you get on the social ladder…snitch.

    Gee, I guess the post before mind kind of hit it on the nose. Not Snitch Reg, not WBC or any of you other social justice types. If in fact all that is true, what’s your problem?

  90. Sure Fire Says:

    WBC, my mistake.

  91. Woody Says:

    75. Woody Says: Thank you, Celeste. Let’s hope that reg gets the message.

    Apparently, he didn’t.

    - – -

    reg, clearly you are bored and need a job for which you are qualified and enjoy. In the spirit of conciliation, let me help. Airport security has a new challenge and needs the right people to detect a new style Islamic terrorist bomber. You fill the bill. Here’s the story.

    Al Qaeda has developed a new tactic that allows suicide bombers to breach even the tightest security….

    …Taking a trick from the narcotics trade – which has long smuggled drugs in body cavities – Asieri had a pound of high explosives, plus a detonator inserted in his rectum.

    This was a meticulously planned operation with al Qaeda once again producing something new: this time, the Trojan bomber.

    …On a plane at altitude, the effects of such a bomb could be catastrophic. And there is no current security system that could stop it.

    “Absolutely nothing other than to require people to strip naked at the airport,” said Yates.

    Put on your rubber gloves, go down to the employment office, and show them your skills. It’s for your country and yourself.

  92. Woody Says:

    Hey, reg, another job for you, and it’s good through 2014! — Cleveland awarded games.

  93. reg Says:

    You’re both fools. No more need be said.

  94. WTF Says:

    Funny how Sisco was the one tuned out and Woody is the center of attention as usual. People love a circus and Reg and Woody provide a us a two ring circus.

  95. Chuck Says:

    Most agree that Roman Polanski should be left to lead his life in peace. Justice delayed is justice denied, and the reasons for the delay are not his. Roman fled because he was being set up by everyone; his lawyer, the judge, and the DA. The ‘victim’ in this case was not exactly an innocent, and her mother was even worse because she knew what was going to happen and Roman went along with it because he was given a “gift” on a plate that he could not resist.
    Anyone who is being objective here, and not a knee-jerk reactionist, recognizes that Roman probably he did what he did because of the pressure he was under having lost Sharon Tate so horribly some years earlier, which is a fact that many forget.
    It is also clear that the ‘victim’ did what she did because she was willing to do what she had to do to please him and her mother – it’s not like she was kidnapped is it?
    The French are far more open-minded to situations like this, and if there is to be any fairness at all, we should invite a French judge to come to Los Angeles and decide the case; after all, Roman lives in France and he appears to be no threat to anyone there.
    The French have recently become a lot more friendly to Americans since the election and as someone in the “industry” I think there will be a fierce backlash against our business if we insist on punishing a talented artiste for something that happened before most people were born; it’s like a Nazi witch hunt the way the DA is going after Roman.
    It’s time to get over it and move on. The ‘victim’ has moved on and she desperately does not want the sordid details of her past to be laundered in public. This was a private matter and it should remain that way.
    Roman is just as much a victim here, and it’s time you all realized that just like so many other so-called crimes, there is another side to the story.

  96. reg Says:

    I have to say that “Misfire’s” totally wack stream-of-consciousness ravings about “snitches” is as telling as his perv talk about cops and prison guards engaging in gang rape. Without “snitches”, of course, assholes like him would be nothing. Drug cops need their snitches like a junky needs a fix. They create them, they run them, they squeeze them – and terrorize anyone they can into that corner to make a case. Drug prosecution is all about snitches and Misfire knows it. Snitches are key to the game – drug cops turn them out like pimps turn out whores. Which is why the loathing that drips like pus out of Misfire’s comments is really all about himself.

    My last word on a dirtbag.

  97. John Moore Says:

    But to spend a boat load of money trying extradite him, considering the victim herself, now an adult, is no longer even seeking his apprehension? I agree with Celeste. Let’s focus on the here and now.

    I think this misses the point. A very, very important reason to prosecute Polanski is because he is famous, and his behavior has been excused publicly. To not prosecute him is to send the message that he is above the law. If it costs a bunch to prosecute him, it’s a price that needs to be paid.

    And that is the crucial point; not the cost; not the victim’s wishes; but the message it sends about justice.

  98. John Moore Says:

    Sure Fire..

    I don’t think you want to use the phrase “looking at this from a hands on perspective” on this subject :-)

    Stick around. Some of us appreciate your perspective and knowledge. But please be nice to Claire – we may disagree, but she’s honest, she’s talented and she’s a nice person, so we should be nice too. Gee.. and now I sound like my mother. Oh well.

  99. Sure Fire Says:

    You don’t have a last word Snitch Reg, doesn’t exist in you. Your own comments exposed what you were not mine, you’re a real smart guy for putting it out there.

    I am nice to her John. By the way the post I was talking about that probably hit what happened regarding the judicial and DA misconduct issue on the nose was the one by Ted Lawrence and like truly blind people the main stays here run from it and you end up with more fluff like the post from Chuck.

    Of course since Goldberg said it wasn’t a “rape-rape” I must be wrong.

  100. Woody Says:

    If they don’t pursue Polanski, the the IRS needs to quit pursuing famous people in tax evasion prosecutions.

  101. WBC Says:

    John Moore is right on one point, that Polanski’s defenders have ensured his very public, over-the-top prosecution (circus frenzy, to be precise) BECAUSE “his behavior has been excused publicly.”

    If dummies like Whoopi, Harvey Weinstein, certain others and now Whoopi, hadn’t taken that tack and left it on the OTHER issues (like the fact that thousands of rape kits, each representing a CURRENT victim who IS begging for justice which has not been carried out, her rapist not found and prosecuted; like the irregularities of the case and the pattern of abuse of power, putting ego over justice in this DA’s office, exemplified by Lisker and especially Peagler) it would have been a different matter. But this guy at least at that time behaved like a sleazebag who exemplified the worst of the beyond-self-indulgent culture of Hollywood in the late 70′s/early 80′s, where women and in this case appallingly, young girls, were routinely “interviewed” in hot tubs by men who abused THEIR power and prestige. Now he’s going to be victim of his own game of THOSE times, thanks to his “supporters.”

  102. WBC Says:

    Oops, meant dummies like Debra Winger and NOW Whoopi… not Whoopi twice. Though she is the getting all the attention.

  103. Mavis Beacon Says:

    Just browsing the comments and thought what Chuck said was either a lame joke or just really, really wrong.

  104. PoPloCkerOne Says:

    You guys all want to know how we caught little pervert Polanski or what?
    All these stupid newspaper acticles about how his lawyers sparked or triggered his capture is a bunch of bullshit.

  105. WBC Says:

    Alright, poplock, I’ll bite. How do you think (or know and how do you know) how “we” caught the little perv?

  106. Chuck Says:

    Mavis Beacon – just wondering if anyone was awake, and how far people would go in rallying behind Polanski; I mean that’s the logical extension of the argument Big Hollywood is advancing isn’t it? Polanski – the victim of corrupt a judge and prosecutor. Love it. Forget what he did, that’s beyond dispute, so what’s left? Yes, attack the ‘system,’ and enlist the support of, Woody Alllen???

    Polanski’s lawyers did stir up a hornets nest with their very foolish attempt to pander to Polanski’s desire to personally pick up his Oscar. It’s a pity that Polanski didn’t retain a real criminal defense attorney who could have discretely tried to negotiate a surrender and sentence that Polanski could live with, and when he (or she) found the DA would not play ball, wisely advised Polanski to drop the whole thing. Instead, my namesake tried to play hard ball with the judiciary and the DA, and now, well, now Polanski’s in a Swiss prison.

    Isn’t it interesting to note today’s news that the French have withdrawn their demands and the Polish government is distancing itself from the one lone voice who spoke up for Polanski.

    PoPloCkerOne, I don’t think you know jack, but why don’t you try to ‘splain it?

  107. Chuck Says:

    If the Swiss court decides to grant our warrant to extradite Polanski, it will be interesting to see how the case plays out. He’s so obviously a flight risk that he could be denied bail while he awaits either sentencing by a new judge, or while he tries to withdraw his plea. I hope he tries to withdraw his plea and that if that is successful, the DA does not bow to the victim’s wishes, and proceeds with a new trial. The fact that the victim does not want to testify is not important, her original testimony before the Grand Jury will be used if she claims she cannot remember, or if she tries to minimize his conduct. Withdrawing the plea is a double edged sword, as it means Polanski will be tried for forcible rape, not the statutory rape he pleaded to. Polanski will be convicted, and spend the rest of his days with Spector, reminiscing about the ‘good old days’ when men were men and women were objects to be used and abused. Time have changed, haven’t they?

  108. Vlad Says:

    To your point that had this been you regular Joe, DA’s office would not be prosecuting him with this fervor – jails are filled with regular Joes, not Roman Poanskis.

  109. Gerry Says:

    Are you kidding me? Celeste Freemon you are a moron. He did not allegedly drug and sodomize a 13 year old child. He plead guilty to doing so, or at least accepted a plea bargain. There is a world of difference.

    Why don’t we send your 13 year old over to some pedophile’s house, let him drig and rape her and then have this discussion about how skewed the priorities of law enforcement are these days? Raping a child is not the only charge here, either. The drugging of the child and his fleeing justice will also bring him additional jail time. This disgusting man is no longer making a mockery of our justice system. If that saddens and disturbs you then you really have some issues.

  110. Celeste Fremon Says:

    Gerry, I am so entirely wearied by people like you.

    1. You don’t bother to read what I write in its totality, but fasten on one thing out of context and then begin shrieking.

    2. You do not take the time to even have the most cursory grasp on the facts of the situation about which you are so indignant.

    (News flash, dude, Polanski did not plead guilty to any of the things you name, although he was originally charged with them. In return for having all other charges dropped, he pleaded to the drastically reduced single charge of “unlawful sex with a minor.” So whatever I might personally believe that he did to Samantha Geimer, in the eyes of the law all that has been established is that he had sex with an underage girl. So that is all I am legally empowered to write without the word “alleged” in front of it.)

    3. Yet, in spite of all the above, you think that the way to have a meaningful discussion on a complex issue is to call someone abusive names then wish violent rape on their children.

    Just go away.

  111. Dennis Says:

    Hey, I’ve been deleted from the moderator apparently my freedom of speech has been violated.

    “The judge also reportedly talked over possible sentences with a reporter, and supposedly made public remarks about his intention to see that Polanski was locked up for the rest of his life”. (FOR HAVING SEX???) It is also alleged that an LA prosecutor who was not on the case, pressured Rittenband to yank back the deal.

    In reaction, to what appeared to be a life-sentence coming his direction. Polanski fled the country.

    In the years since, several efforts have been made to settle the case by dismissing the charges.

  112. Dennis Says:

    “The judges have the cops in thier back pockets i.e. thier wallets and the cops have the judges in thier pockets”. Why is a judge being pressured by a prosecutor. CAN YOU SAY M.O.N.E.Y.

Leave a Comment





Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.