They still have him on fugitive charges. If the victim does not want to testify they will subpoena her.
Broadway Star Joined: 6/17/04
I believe the victim said she wanted the matter dropped, because recalling the event was too painful to go through.
I believe she didn't want it persued bcause she's already sued Polanski and received an out of court settlement. Wonder what clauses that might have contained?
There is system. There is a process. He flouted both. ( yes I know about the withdrawn plea deal)
THAT is now what this is about and he will face a term of incarciration for that. 2 yrs less a day concurrent plus time off for good behavior- maybe nine months in all.
She's already published her account of the crime. And while she says she'd like to "drop it" now, that's not for her to decide. This is a federal offense and a felony. He's a child molester. So her opinion of the crime doesn't matter. Neither does her "willingness" to comply. Not saying that she was willing at all, since she was drugged at the time, but it wouldn't matter if she had been.
She was 13, and there are strict laws in this country about having sex with 13-year-olds. Opinions and circumstances don't matter.
And while I wouldn't compare the crime to pursuing a terrorist like Osama Bin Laden, I also wouldn't consider throwing out every criminal case that should come to trial that is of a "lesser" concern in the public's mind until we catch him. Not only is that a bizarre statement, it's irrelevant.
I also think it's hypocritical for some here to suggest throwing out this case before it comes to trial. If Polanski weren't a legendary, Oscar-winning film director, you wouldn't think twice about having justice served. I'm sure there are many others out there in similar situations who haven't made the papers because they're not in the movie biz. Or you haven't "liked their work."
The "talent" of a fugitive criminal shouldn't matter. Neither should his singing voice. His ability to ballroom dance, his love of God and country, or his contributions to charity. Or his looks. Neither should anything in his background or, in this case, his previous situation as the husband of the slain and beautiful Sharon Tate. Feel sorry for him all you want. Understand him. Love his movies if you chose to. But excusing his crime because you pity him or admire him is truly warped.
And if you say you would let *anybody* off the hook in a similar situation, I find that pretty disgusting. She was still a child. What if this happened to your 13-year-old daughter? Or sister?
What Besty said.
I believe there were allegations of impropriety involving the DA and the presiding judge surrounding his plea deal (he pled guilty to the charges, and the fled before sentencing). I have a feeling that the original plea will be thrown out, and then the matter will have to be retried. I wonder if they can still make their case without an admission from him?
And, why I am getting the good old James Barbour vibe from some of the posters on this thread.
While best12 is correct in many of his assertions, the fact of the matter is that the JUDICIAL PROCESS OF THIS CASE was corrupted to such an extent as to make the case no longer valid no matter what actually happened between Polanski and the girl. In other words: the cop (etc.) and the crook are equally at fault. THAT's the main problem, not the question of whether or not the felonious act took place.
And if only the real world, and the way the courts actually work, were as black and white as the juris prudence system as best12 sees it things may be different. MAY.
P
I don't think it's as "black and white" as you see it about the corruption in the DA's office, Pgenre.
But that's their best (and only) defense.
If they were as confident as you are about the corruption, and there was enough evidence to back it up, Polanski would have turned himself in and the case would have been thrown out ages ago.
I can only imagine that there is got to be some level of relief in finally being arrested. Living with the threat and fear of being apprehended for the past thirty years has got to have been worse than what ultimately happens now.
MB, I truly believe he did this on purpose just now. As it's been said before, he was well aware of the extradition laws in Switzerland. No surprises there.
I think he wants to end it now. Perhaps it's more "convenient" for him to stop his life and face the consequences as a septuagenarian. He can "work it into his busy schedule," as cynical as that sounds.
He'll either get a few years in jail with his photo and name forever published on the child molester rosters in the U.S., or this case will be thrown out due to a major legal screw-up. We shall see.
Ancient history and a big who cares? They should just leave him be. It happened over thirty years ago and the victim doesn't even want to press charges. It's a waste of time and money and yet another distraction from the important things that are going on in the here and now.
Can someone walk me through the Polanski-Democrats connection?
One must drop some mind altering drugs and watch a Glen Beck marathon for that Reginald!
best12, I'm curious: have you seen ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED & DESIRED? I thought I knew the case, but this documentary is positively MIND-BLOWING and one of the best of its kind, fwiw. Check it out if you haven't and you'll see the interviews with the actual prosecutor, etc. which is a main reason why I put so much weight on the fact that the case was corrupted beyond comprehension. Either way, you have spoken so eloquently on it that I get the feeling you would enjoy it as someone interested in the case!
I think the fact his wife and son's murderer dying this week must have something to do with all of this.
And just a week or two ago Michael Kunze announced that Polanski and he were planning on doing the film version of TANZ/DOTC within the next year or so! DOTV/TANZ just never gets a break... cursed, cursed, cursed!
P
"I think the fact his wife and son's murderer dying this week must have something to do with all of this."
I thought about that, too! I think you're right, Pgenre.
I haven't seen this doc, but it sounds interesting, definitely. I'm not sure how "fascinated" I am with this case, actually. I haven't thought about it in a long time. The first thing that came to mind when you posted about the doc----I wonder if any of it can be used as evidence. Probably not, since none of these interviewees were under oath on camera (like the prosecutor, etc.). And the original judge is dead now, right?
It does make me wonder that if there really is enough corruption evidence to have this case completely thrown out, why Polanski didn't take care of it decades ago.
Pgenre, Polanski's lawyers have challenged the plea deal to a great extent based upon some of the content in the Documentary. The judge hearing the challenge said that he would consider it but would only issue a ruling if Polanski showed up in a LA Court, which he did not, so the appeal was quashed.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
Polanski actually owns a house in Switzerland and has been filming there for a couple of years, as well as filming all over Europe. On the BBC today I heard a reporter interviewing people at the Film Festival he was invited to attend to receive his Lifetime Achievement Award and they bemoaned how odd it was to wait for this moment, since he's been there so much the past several years. The reporter also said there's scuttlebutt that this is Switzerland's little bid to curry favor with the US, which has been putting pressure on Switzerland for its notorious bank accounts.
So he is like Switzerland's virgin sacrifice to the volcano god?
Well, maybe not a virgin sacrifice.
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/4/04
During Polanski's last attempt to get his case dropped, the judge presiding refused to do so, but did indicate that if there was misconduct in the original trial he'd be open to hearing about it.
Because here's the thing - in our system, if your trial went wrong, you appeal it and then maybe sue the state government for damages if you turn out to be right. You don't flee the country and go someplace with no extradition treaty. Polanski is not above the law, and his artistic legacy has no relevance when it comes to determining his guilt.
Facts are facts: He had sex with a 13-year-old and then fled the country before his sentencing because he thought the judge would go back on his plea bargain and send him to jail. He's responsible for his actions. Stuff like good works, artistic merits, etc. comes up in sentencing, not trial. So yeah, I'm glad he was arrested.
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/10/04
Off topic, but now that it's been mentioned, "Dance of the Vampires" should never have been done on Broadway because of Polanski. "Tanz der Vampire" was Roman's baby more than it ever was Jim Steinman's and it's rude to take anything out of anyone's control like that. I also think he still could have directed it, simply appointing a resident director who would report back to him or set up a webcam with a resident director in place. Also, "Vampires" should have gone to the West End first in a faithful English translation. "Batman" should have been kept for Broadway with Michael Crawford as the Joker, finally getting his funny role that was serious enough and different from the Phantom.
My thoughts.
I have NOTHING to say about Roman.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
I totally agree. How RUDE!
Once again you read my mind, Namo.
There's no rude in show business!
rockfenris, get some perspective. A man was just arrested for a 30 year old crime the same week that his wife's notorious killer died. Believe it or not, the world does not revolve around campy German musicals.
Videos