Switzerland will not extradite Roman Polanski

[Contumacious]

Such a lie. Such a lie. Have you no shame?

He picked me up again on March 10 at around 4 p.m. In the car he asked me if I'd ever had sex. I had,

That's when he takes out the Quaaludes and asks me if I've ever had one. ....and say yes.


Then Anjelica Huston [who was Jack Nicholson's girlfriend at the time] knocked on the door. I assume she asked him, "What are you doing in my room?" I started to get dressed, but Polanski came back and said, "Lay back down," and he took off my underwear. He had been interrupted, so he finished—briefly—then went back to talk to her





That was grand jury testimony which was not subjected to cross examination and where she was coached by the prosecutor.

It is rape either way. Even if she said yes..she was 13..he was 44.

He was never charged with rape.

Yes he most certainly WAS charged with rape you scumbag lying sack of shit.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/arts/polanski/1977polanski_findlaw.pdf

Try looking at Count IV, you dishonest pin dick.

RAPE BY USE OF DRUGS

Gee, that is an impressive indictment. Why didn't the prosecutor demand hard time? Why did he settle for probation?

Was it because he knew that Samantha Gailey was a Lolita, a little slut who was going to be destroyed during cross examination?

She admitted to willingly drinking the champagne and the Methaqualones.

.

 

[Moon]

He picked me up again on March 10 at around 4 p.m. In the car he asked me if I'd ever had sex. I had,

That's when he takes out the Quaaludes and asks me if I've ever had one. ....and say yes.


Then Anjelica Huston [who was Jack Nicholson's girlfriend at the time] knocked on the door. I assume she asked him, "What are you doing in my room?" I started to get dressed, but Polanski came back and said, "Lay back down," and he took off my underwear. He had been interrupted, so he finished—briefly—then went back to talk to her





That was grand jury testimony which was not subjected to cross examination and where she was coached by the prosecutor.




He was never charged with rape.

Yes he most certainly WAS charged with rape you scumbag lying sack of shit.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/arts/polanski/1977polanski_findlaw.pdf

Try looking at Count IV, you dishonest pin dick.

RAPE BY USE OF DRUGS

Gee, that is an impressive indictment. Why didn't the prosecutor demand hard time? Why did he settle for probation?

Was it because he knew that Samantha Gailey was a Lolita, a little slut who was going to be destroyed during cross examination?

She admitted to willingly drinking the champagne and the Methaqualones.

.

Oh, so she was asking for it, is that your rationalization now?

 

[froggy]

Yes he most certainly WAS charged with rape you scumbag lying sack of shit.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/arts/polanski/1977polanski_findlaw.pdf

Try looking at Count IV, you dishonest pin dick.

RAPE BY USE OF DRUGS

Gee, that is an impressive indictment. Why didn't the prosecutor demand hard time? Why did he settle for probation?

Was it because he knew that Samantha Gailey was a Lolita, a little slut who was going to be destroyed during cross examination?

She admitted to willingly drinking the champagne and the Methaqualones.

.

Oh, so she was asking for it, is that your rationalization now?

Why didn't she just leave, she got up and left on her on account after she finished.

 

[Kat]

He picked me up again on March 10 at around 4 p.m. In the car he asked me if I'd ever had sex. I had,

That's when he takes out the Quaaludes and asks me if I've ever had one. ....and say yes.


Then Anjelica Huston [who was Jack Nicholson's girlfriend at the time] knocked on the door. I assume she asked him, "What are you doing in my room?" I started to get dressed, but Polanski came back and said, "Lay back down," and he took off my underwear. He had been interrupted, so he finished—briefly—then went back to talk to her





That was grand jury testimony which was not subjected to cross examination and where she was coached by the prosecutor.




He was never charged with rape.

Yes he most certainly WAS charged with rape you scumbag lying sack of shit.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/arts/polanski/1977polanski_findlaw.pdf

Try looking at Count IV, you dishonest pin dick.

RAPE BY USE OF DRUGS

Gee, that is an impressive indictment. Why didn't the prosecutor demand hard time? Why did he settle for probation?

Was it because he knew that Samantha Gailey was a Lolita, a little slut who was going to be destroyed during cross examination?

She admitted to willingly drinking the champagne and the Methaqualones.

.

You have gotten your attention you seek. Maybe it is time to walk? A bit of advice though...SEEK HELP. You are doing great harm to the children you molest. I know you don't care, but decent human beings do care.

 

[Kat]

RAPE BY USE OF DRUGS

Gee, that is an impressive indictment. Why didn't the prosecutor demand hard time? Why did he settle for probation?

Was it because he knew that Samantha Gailey was a Lolita, a little slut who was going to be destroyed during cross examination?

She admitted to willingly drinking the champagne and the Methaqualones.

.

Oh, so she was asking for it, is that your rationalization now?

Why didn't she just leave, she got up and left on her on account after she finished.

She also said she was scared...afraid of Polanski. As I would be if I were ANY age, much less 13. He was 44.

 

[Moon]

RAPE BY USE OF DRUGS

Gee, that is an impressive indictment. Why didn't the prosecutor demand hard time? Why did he settle for probation?

Was it because he knew that Samantha Gailey was a Lolita, a little slut who was going to be destroyed during cross examination?

She admitted to willingly drinking the champagne and the Methaqualones.

.

Oh, so she was asking for it, is that your rationalization now?

Why didn't she just leave, she got up and left on her on account after she finished.

I dunno, maybe because he'd given her alcohol and drugged her?

Tell me again how you don't condone what Polanski did.

 

[Liability]

He picked me up again on March 10 at around 4 p.m. In the car he asked me if I'd ever had sex. I had,

That's when he takes out the Quaaludes and asks me if I've ever had one. ....and say yes.


Then Anjelica Huston [who was Jack Nicholson's girlfriend at the time] knocked on the door. I assume she asked him, "What are you doing in my room?" I started to get dressed, but Polanski came back and said, "Lay back down," and he took off my underwear. He had been interrupted, so he finished—briefly—then went back to talk to her





That was grand jury testimony which was not subjected to cross examination and where she was coached by the prosecutor.




He was never charged with rape.

Yes he most certainly WAS charged with rape you scumbag lying sack of shit.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/arts/polanski/1977polanski_findlaw.pdf

Try looking at Count IV, you dishonest pin dick.

RAPE BY USE OF DRUGS

Gee, that is an impressive indictment. Why didn't the prosecutor demand hard time? Why did he settle for probation?

Was it because he knew that Samantha Gailey was a Lolita, a little slut who was going to be destroyed during cross examination?

She admitted to willingly drinking the champagne and the Methaqualones.

.

You degenerate dead maggot fucker, the indictment charged the appropriate crimes and like many cases, shithead, it proceeded by way of plea negotiations. Your desperately stupid attempt to deflect is consigned to the burning pits of hell as just another in your endless list of failures.

Let's recap: you falsely claimed that the indictment did not charge rape. You stupid twat. It did charge rape so your dishonest claim has been crammed down your dishonest throat.

And your stupid ass question of "why" it got plea bargained is a failure since most cases go by way of plea, you imbecile.

The girl was a child. By simple and morally correct legal definition, assbreath, she was incapable of consenting and that remains true regardless of how often she had engaged in sex or sodomy in the past. Plus, the scumbag pedophile drugged her, too, which is criminal in its own right and another crime as regards lack of consent for his rape and sodomy.

As is ALWAYS the case with a diseased anus like you, your "defense" of the pedophile is totally lacking in merit. The law REQUIRES that adults not perform sexual intercourse or engage in oral sex with minors. Period. It doesn't say, "but look, if the little girl is experienced or a whore, go right ahead and have your way with her." That's just a filthy bastard like you expressing wishful thinking. Well that's just your perversion, ass-muncher. It's not a legally recognized defense.

Are you this defensive over Polanski's behavior because you've violated such laws yourself, sicko?

,

 

[daveman]

What a railroad job getting him to give up his rights knowing good and well (that is the DA and judge) they had no intention of keeping their word. By this he gave up the right to face his accuser, have her cross examined.

Exactly.

Our judicial system is corrupt to its core.

.

In case you pedos didn't get the word, having sex with children is both illegal and immoral. I'm curious what exactly is so fucked up in your heads that you can condone it.

 

[froggy]

Oh, so she was asking for it, is that your rationalization now?

Why didn't she just leave, she got up and left on her on account after she finished.

She also said she was scared...afraid of Polanski. As I would be if I were ANY age, much less 13. He was 44.

I don't believe that, teens in the seventies weren't a product being sheltered as they are now.

 

[froggy]

Oh, so she was asking for it, is that your rationalization now?

Why didn't she just leave, she got up and left on her on account after she finished.

I dunno, maybe because he'd given her alcohol and drugged her?

Tell me again how you don't condone what Polanski did.

So the drugs lasted just a few minutes.

 

[Kat]

What a railroad job getting him to give up his rights knowing good and well (that is the DA and judge) they had no intention of keeping their word. By this he gave up the right to face his accuser, have her cross examined.

Exactly.

Our judicial system is corrupt to its core.

.

In case you pedos didn't get the word, having sex with children is both illegal and immoral. I'm curious what exactly is so fucked up in your heads that you can condone it.

Well, for sure the first thing would be that Cont hates women. That is way obvious.

 

[Kat]

Why didn't she just leave, she got up and left on her on account after she finished.

She also said she was scared...afraid of Polanski. As I would be if I were ANY age, much less 13. He was 44.

I don't believe that, teens in the seventies were a product being sheltered as they are now.

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Liability]

We have been down this road before. You believe it is okay to have sex...''forceful or not''
with a female of any age..so I don't need to read between ANY lines. I know what you are.

Hopefully, there is a law requiring sites such as this to report these types of posters, along with IP numbers, to the FBI. The guy no doubt a pedophile and has illegal child porn on his computer. I hope his name goes into a database and his ass lands in a prison cell with Big Bubba.

Let me guess...normally you hate BIG GOVERNMENT, right?

Except when you don't, of course.

Hey, you're not alone in that respect.

I ALSO hate big government, until, of course, I approve of it.

Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Your typical lack of comprehension is on display. You tools tend to rely far too much on headnotes.

Conservatives are largely opposed to "big" government in most regards preferring that government be constrained and chained and limited. But there is no reason to over-generalize. That kind of slovenly "thinking" is the hallmark of liberoidals.

There are, you see, SOME things we NEED governments for. As to those things, it would be pretty foolish to "limit" government so drastically that it became unable to do the very things we ask for it to do.

I want police forces to be well manned and well armed and well trained enough to effectively deal with criminals. I want the legislature to pass laws protecting our children from pedophile fucks like Polanski. I want our armed forces to be be big and powerful enough to protect us and our vital interests.

I also want our elected officials and appointed bureaucrats to feel fully obliged to do their jobs within whatever constraints we have imposed on them via the Constitution. I see no rational argument AGAINST a limited government, but that doesn't mean I want them so constrained tht they are disabled from doing the very things we ask of them.

Your world of false dichotomies is tiresome. Grow up.

 

[Kat]

Yes he most certainly WAS charged with rape you scumbag lying sack of shit.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/arts/polanski/1977polanski_findlaw.pdf

Try looking at Count IV, you dishonest pin dick.

RAPE BY USE OF DRUGS

Gee, that is an impressive indictment. Why didn't the prosecutor demand hard time? Why did he settle for probation?

Was it because he knew that Samantha Gailey was a Lolita, a little slut who was going to be destroyed during cross examination?

She admitted to willingly drinking the champagne and the Methaqualones.

.

You degenerate dead maggot fucker, the indictment charged the appropriate crimes and like many cases, shithead, it proceeded by way of plea negotiations. Your desperately stupid attempt to deflect is consigned to the burning pits of hell as just another in your endless list of failures.

Let's recap: you falsely claimed that the indictment did not charge rape. You stupid twat. It did charge rape so your dishonest claim has been crammed down your dishonest throat.

And your stupid ass question of "why" it got plea bargained is a failure since most cases go by way of plea, you imbecile.

The girl was a child. By simple and morally correct legal definition, assbreath, she was incapable of consenting and that remains true regardless of how often she had engaged in sex or sodomy in the past. Plus, the scumbag pedophile drugged her, too, which is criminal in its own right and another crime as regards lack of consent for his rape and sodomy.

As is ALWAYS the case with a diseased anus like you, your "defense" of the pedophile is totally lacking in merit. The law REQUIRES that adults not perform sexual intercourse or engage in oral sex with minors. Period. It doesn't say, "but look, if the little girl is experienced or a whore, go right ahead and have your way with her." That's just a filthy bastard like you expressing wishful thinking. Well that's just your perversion, ass-muncher. It's not a legally recognized defense.

Are you this defensive over Polanski's behavior because you've violated such laws yourself, sicko?

,

I am starting to believe Cont gets off on your replies to him. That is why he pushes it with his stupidity..

 

[froggy]

What a railroad job getting him to give up his rights knowing good and well (that is the DA and judge) they had no intention of keeping their word. By this he gave up the right to face his accuser, have her cross examined.

Exactly.

Our judicial system is corrupt to its core.

.

In case you pedos didn't get the word, having sex with children is both illegal and immoral. I'm curious what exactly is so fucked up in your heads that you can condone it.

We agree with you on that having sex with a minon is wrong,(is there someone in the room with you who can make you understand that), we're saying she wasn't raped.

 

[Moon]

Why didn't she just leave, she got up and left on her on account after she finished.

I dunno, maybe because he'd given her alcohol and drugged her?

Tell me again how you don't condone what Polanski did.

So the drugs lasted just a few minutes.

What does that have to do with anything?

I'm glad we're past the fantasy that you don't condone what Polanski did, when it's obvious that you not only condone it, but are actively supporting it in this thread. Maybe this is a reflection of your own activities?

 

[froggy]

She also said she was scared...afraid of Polanski. As I would be if I were ANY age, much less 13. He was 44.

I don't believe that, teens in the seventies were a product being sheltered as they are now.

That doesn't even make sense.

I meant "weren't"

 

[Kat]

I don't believe that, teens in the seventies were a product being sheltered as they are now.

That doesn't even make sense.

I meant "weren't"

froggy, do you really believe the things you are saying? Do you really believe that giving drugs and alcohol to a 13 year old..and then doing all the sexual things to her that he did...WITH HER SAYING NO..was not rape?
I want to think you are pulling our chain. I saw in another thread where you said you will celebrate 33 years of marriage this year, so I know you are not a kid. I am truly stunned at what you are spewing here.

 

[froggy]

I dunno, maybe because he'd given her alcohol and drugged her?

Tell me again how you don't condone what Polanski did.

So the drugs lasted just a few minutes.

What does that have to do with anything?

I'm glad we're past the fantasy that you don't condone what Polanski did, when it's obvious that you not only condone it, but are actively supporting it in this thread. Maybe this is a reflection of your own activities?

You said she couldn't leave because she was drugged, be she said right after they finished she put her clothes on went out to the other room and gathered up her stuff and talked briefly with the woman sitting there and then went out and got in the car and waited on Polanski, does that sound like she was unable to leave.

 

[froggy]

That doesn't even make sense.

I meant "weren't"

froggy, do you really believe the things you are saying? Do you really believe that giving drugs and alcohol to a 13 year old..and then doing all the sexual things to her that he did...WITH HER SAYING NO..was not rape?
I want to think you are pulling our chain. I saw in another thread where you said you will celebrate 33 years of marriage this year, so I know you are not a kid. I am truly stunned at what you are spewing here.

Why do you believe she said "no"