Switzerland rejects extradition of Polanski

[madbrian]

Posted: 7/12/10 at 8:50am

He's been under house arrest for months, but he is now a free man.
Polanski

[Q]

Posted: 7/12/10 at 9:00am

"The Justice Ministry also said that national interests were taken into consideration in the stunning decision."

Well, that's cryptic.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/13/10 at 11:40am

I was surprised more people weren't talking about this. It sounds like it was more on a technicality than anything.

The United States failed to provide confidential testimony to refute defense arguments the filmmaker had actually served his sentence before fleeing Los Angeles three decades ago, Widmer-Schlumpf said.

If that's true, I wonder why the US didn't provide the testimony?

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/13/10 at 11:43am

Yes, they made it sound like a technicality. But then it seemed as though the technicality was the US deliberately suppressing a vital piece of testimony.

[Q]

Posted: 7/13/10 at 11:44am

It's being portrayed in the conservative press as a direct slap in the face to Obama. Quite a leap.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/13/10 at 11:45am

Which - and I hate to come down on the side of Polanski, so I'm really just pulling at the threads presented - raises something of a red flag about it, doesn't it? You'd think - if the allegations weren't true - the US would release the testimony? But I know virtually nothing about extradition, let alone the penal system.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/13/10 at 11:46am

Nor do I, Phyl. But those were my thoughts exactly.

[StockardFan]

Posted: 7/13/10 at 12:03pm

The whole thing is over my head.