Switzerland will not extradite Roman Polanski

[Kat]

That point is moot:

"Guido Balmer, a spokesman for the Swiss justice ministry, said Switzerland deals with about 200 extradition cases a year. About 95% of extradition requests are granted; among the 5% that are denied, the most common reasons are that the alleged crime in the defendant's home country is not a crime in Switzerland or, as in Polanski's case, the extradition request is considered flawed."

.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs?

Answer my question!

Look , the powers-that-be had a chance to show the Swiss authorities that Mr. Polanski should have been extradited. They failed or refused to do so.

So you can argue that the Swiss authorities are pedophiles. But menahwhile Roman Polanski is a free man, as he should be.

.

You. Need. Help.
Oh and no..trust me Polanski is not a free man. He has his demons to deal with. He won't get away from that EVER.

I take your non - answer to my question as being that in reality you know it is wrong.

 

[Moon]

That point is moot:

"Guido Balmer, a spokesman for the Swiss justice ministry, said Switzerland deals with about 200 extradition cases a year. About 95% of extradition requests are granted; among the 5% that are denied, the most common reasons are that the alleged crime in the defendant's home country is not a crime in Switzerland or, as in Polanski's case, the extradition request is considered flawed."

.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs?

Answer my question!

Look , the powers-that-be had a chance to show the Swiss authorities that Mr. Polanski should have been extradited. They failed or refused to do so.

So you can argue that the Swiss authorities are pedophiles. But menahwhile Roman Polanski is a free man, as he should be.

.

No, he should be sitting in prison, waiting for the day when he takes his last breath on this earth.

 

[Kat]

What does that have to do with the price of eggs?

Answer my question!

Look , the powers-that-be had a chance to show the Swiss authorities that Mr. Polanski should have been extradited. They failed or refused to do so.

So you can argue that the Swiss authorities are pedophiles. But menahwhile Roman Polanski is a free man, as he should be.

.

No, he should be sitting in prison, waiting for the day when he takes his last breath on this earth.

So true, but I think he may be in his own prison..all by his lonesome. He knows what he did. He knows is did it with 2 very young teens. No telling what else he has done...and I feel for his daughter. No telling what her life was like.

 

[froggy]

US vows continued pursuit of Roman Polanski, but resolution on misconduct allegations unlikely
By: ANTHONY McCARTNEY
Associated Press
07/13/10 4:00 AM EDT LOS ANGELES — The pursuit of Roman Polanski will continue, but only to the extent the director allows it.

Authorities in the United States roundly denounced the decision by the Swiss government to set Polanski free, dealing another twist in a sex case that has spanned three decades and two continents.

From prosecutors in Los Angeles to justice officials in Washington, D.C., the Swiss decision was described as a disappointment and to some, an injustice.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley called it a "disservice to justice and other victims as a whole."

The Swiss, for their part, described Polanski as "a free man."

That largely depends on the director's movements. A warrant for his arrest remains active, effectively barring the 76-year-old from returning to the U.S., which he fled in 1978 on the eve of sentencing for a charge of having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.

The ruling cannot be appealed, and within hours of the ruling Polanksi appeared to have left the multimillion dollar chalet where he had been confined on house arrest since last year. He is free to return to his native France, which does not extradite its citizens.

Prosecutors have tried to arrest Polanski during his travels before, and vowed to continue the effort after Monday's ruling.

"The United States believes that the rape of a 13-year-old child by an adult is a crime, and we continue to pursue justice in this case," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said.

Cooley, who is running for California attorney general, said his office will work with federal officials to have Polanski returned for sentencing if he's arrested in a country with a favorable extradition treaty. Cooley's office said last September after Polanski's arrest that it had previously sought his arrest in England, Thailand and Israel.

The Oscar-winning director of "Rosemary's Baby," "Chinatown" and "The Pianist" was accused of plying his victim with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a 1977 modeling shoot and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.

The Swiss government said its decision to reject extradition for Polanski was based in part on U.S. authorities failing to turn over transcripts of secret testimony given by the attorney who originally handled the director's case. The testimony remains sealed, and can only be used if the former prosecutor was unavailable for an evidentiary hearing, a Los Angeles court spokesman said.

The testimony "should prove" that Polanski actually served his sentence while undergoing a court-ordered diagnostic study after charges were filed, the Swiss Justice Ministry said.

"If this were the case, Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation," the ministry said. They also noted that Polanski's victim, Samantha Geimer, has repeatedly asked that the case be dropped.

Cooley, who is the fifth district attorney to handle Polanski's case, accused the Swiss of exploiting a quirk of California law to set the director free and the decision was a "rejection of the competency of the California courts.

"The Swiss could not have found a smaller hook on which to hang their hat," Cooley said in a statement.

In addition to setting Polanski free, the Swiss decision Monday added to the chorus of courts that have expressed doubts about the director's case and his treatment.

Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said extradition had to be rejected "considering the persisting doubts concerning the presentation of the facts of the case."

It now appears unlikely that the misconduct allegations raised by Polanski's legal team will ever be addressed.

The attorneys have said the original judge handling Polanski's case acted improperly by consulting with a prosecutor who was not assigned to the matter on sentencing issues. The judge also reneged on a sentencing deal, the attorneys have repeatedly contended.

Los Angeles prosecutors have consistently argued that the director must return to Los Angeles to argue that his case was mishandled by a now-deceased judge and a former prosecutor. Polanski has been equally unwilling to return and press his case in person.

Other courts have cited the strong likelihood that Polanski's case, filed in 1977, was mishandled.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza, who has recently presided over the case, said during a hearing last year that he believed there was evidence of "substantial misconduct."

Months later, a three justice panel of a California appeals court also cited the likelihood that there had been misconduct by the judge who originally handled Polanski's case and a prosecutor assigned to his courtroom.

In their written ruling, the justices made their case that Polanski's treatment by the Los Angeles judicial system had to be taken into serious consideration.

"Fundamental fairness and justice in our criminal justice system are far more important than the conviction and sentence of any one individual," the court wrote last year.

Despite misgivings about Polanski's treatment, none of the courts have ordered a hearing to determine whether the director's case was mishandled. Such a ruling could lead to an outright dismissal of the charges against the director.

"Polanski got away with a lot, but it's not all black and white," said Loyola Law School professor Stan Goldman. "I don't see the D.A. rushing to investigate the very palpable evidence of misconduct in the original case. And the victim said they were hurting her every time they brought this up. So there are many shades of gray."

Jean Rosenbluth, a former federal prosecutor who has handled extradition cases, said Cooley's attorneys risked harming themselves in future extradition cases if they agreed to a hearing on the misconduct issues without Polanski's presence. "The D.A. was in a tough spot," said Rosenbluth, now a professor at the University of Southern California's Gould School of Law. "They don't want to set a precedent.

"The allegations are very serious," she said. "On the other hand, they were 30 years ago. It's a really, really difficult case — just a jumble of competing principles and different circumstances."

 

[daveman]

Mr. Dumb Ass Sir:

The Plea agreement stated that the would plea guilty in exchange for a probated sentence. The Plea agreement stated that if the same was not accepted by the court that the matter would go to trial.

The scumbag judge decided to use Mr Polanski's case in order to get re-elected. Bullshit. Mr. Polanski had no choice but to get out of Dodge.

Thye Swiss agreed. Case over and out.

.

Are you still stealing my oxygen? Please stop. Immediately.

 

[froggy]

Same here! I didn't know anything about the what he did until his recent arrest. What he was RAPE and not just statutory rape of a minor! He drugged the girl and then forcibly raped her.

He deserves universal condemnation and severe punishment!

He already got it Charles Manson bunch cut his unborn out of Sharon Tate's womb.

How does that excuse what he did? Does that give me a free pass to rape too, or does it only work for celebrities?

Where was the rape the girl testified the during sex the woman came to the door an ask are you in there roman and said he got up and opened the door a little and told her he was dressing then closed the door and came back and they continued with sex. why didn't she scream while the woman was at the door. she also said that after he finished she went to the bathroom and got dressed then went out to get her stuff and go to the car at that time she was in the room with the woman talking with her and then went out and got into the car and waited for Polanski.

 

[editec]

I wish I could say I'm shocked or outraged here. But strangely, I'm not either. I just feel really sorry for his victims who have had to suffer because of him.

God grants justice where the laws of man cannot. If he thinks he has escaped it, he's wrong.

Yet the victim herself just wants the whole issue to go away.

I think this issue is basically now a non-issue.

 

[Moon]

He already got it Charles Manson bunch cut his unborn out of Sharon Tate's womb.

How does that excuse what he did? Does that give me a free pass to rape too, or does it only work for celebrities?

Where was the rape the girl testified the during sex the woman came to the door an ask are you in there roman and said he got up and opened the door a little and told her he was dressing then closed the door and came back and they continued with sex. why didn't she scream while the woman was at the door. she also said that after he finished she went to the bathroom and got dressed then went out to get her stuff and go to the car at that time she was in the room with the woman talking with her and then went out and got into the car and waited for Polanski.

Regardless, she was 13 years old. Please try to keep that in mind in your attempts to excuse what he did.

 

[Article 15]

He already got it Charles Manson bunch cut his unborn out of Sharon Tate's womb.

How does that excuse what he did? Does that give me a free pass to rape too, or does it only work for celebrities?

Where was the rape the girl testified the during sex the woman came to the door an ask are you in there roman and said he got up and opened the door a little and told her he was dressing then closed the door and came back and they continued with sex. why didn't she scream while the woman was at the door. she also said that after he finished she went to the bathroom and got dressed then went out to get her stuff and go to the car at that time she was in the room with the woman talking with her and then went out and got into the car and waited for Polanski.

She was a scared, drugged 13 year old girl.

Jeez there are some sick ppl here.

 

[Liability]

Mr. Dumb Ass Sir:

The Plea agreement stated that the would plea guilty in exchange for a probated sentence. The Plea agreement stated that if the same was not accepted by the court that the matter would go to trial.

The scumbag judge decided to use Mr Polanski's case in order to get re-elected. Bullshit. Mr. Polanski had no choice but to get out of Dodge.

Thye Swiss agreed. Case over and out.

.

That is an outright and deliberate lie. The plea agreement did not say what you dishonestly claim it said. You have had your dishonest claim refuted in the past. But, being the filthy liar you always are, you refuse to admit that you are wrong and blithely just go on repeating your lie. You are a diseased maggot-fucking lowlife scumbag.

Switzerland should get a full court press of overt diplomatic sanctions for it's bogus decision. Of course, President Obama and our State department will do nothing of any consequence.

And the filthy pedophile will get away with his crime. A complete travesty and a miscarriage of justice. This explains why a lowlife like you, confusedatious, endorses the Swiss action. You truly are a vile, disgusting, depraved piece of filth.

 

[froggy]

How does that excuse what he did? Does that give me a free pass to rape too, or does it only work for celebrities?

Where was the rape the girl testified the during sex the woman came to the door an ask are you in there roman and said he got up and opened the door a little and told her he was dressing then closed the door and came back and they continued with sex. why didn't she scream while the woman was at the door. she also said that after he finished she went to the bathroom and got dressed then went out to get her stuff and go to the car at that time she was in the room with the woman talking with her and then went out and got into the car and waited for Polanski.

She was a scared, drugged 13 year old girl.

Jeez there are some sick ppl here.

I don't think you find anyone who says they're drunk or drugged say they were scared, Quayled are not that strong especially a third hit

 

[Contumacious]

The Swiss government said its decision to reject extradition for Polanski was based in part on U.S. authorities failing to turn over transcripts of secret testimony given by the attorney who originally handled the director's case. The testimony remains sealed, and can only be used if the former prosecutor was unavailable for an evidentiary hearing, a Los Angeles court spokesman said.

The testimony "should prove" that Polanski actually served his sentence while undergoing a court-ordered diagnostic study after charges were filed, the Swiss Justice Ministry said.

"If this were the case, Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation," the ministry said. They also noted that Polanski's victim, Samantha Geimer, has repeatedly asked that the case be dropped.

Cooley, who is the fifth district attorney to handle Polanski's case, accused the Swiss of exploiting a quirk of California law to set the director free and the decision was a "rejection of the competency of the California courts.

Luckily the Swiss were not influenced by the American Taliban's decision to continue to persecute Mr. Polanski in the name of god.

.

 

[Liability]

Where was the rape the girl testified the during sex the woman came to the door an ask are you in there roman and said he got up and opened the door a little and told her he was dressing then closed the door and came back and they continued with sex. why didn't she scream while the woman was at the door. she also said that after he finished she went to the bathroom and got dressed then went out to get her stuff and go to the car at that time she was in the room with the woman talking with her and then went out and got into the car and waited for Polanski.

She was a scared, drugged 13 year old girl.

Jeez there are some sick ppl here.

I don't think you find anyone who says they're drunk or drugged say they were scared, Quayled are not that strong especially a third hit

Your babbling incoherence is difficult to translate. It looks like you are somehow trying to suggest that a small dose of a quaalude wouldn't have much of an effect on a 13 year old girl. Given that you are functionally illiterate, it seems apparent that you are not a pharmocologist, so there's no reason to credit your amateur opinion on the subject.

Meanwhile, back here in the real world, it is immoral and criminal to force sex on any person of any age; it is even worse to do so to a child; and it is worse yet to do so to a drugged child.

WTF is wrong with you? The hideous scumbag, Roman Pedophile Polanski admitted doing all those things to the victim in this case. So you are offering support to a degenerate confessed pedophile. There is no excuse for what Polanski did and there is no justification for ANYBODY offering any "support" for what that diseased bastard did. Froggy, you sick shit, you are completely wrong here. You ought to feel deep shame.

 

[froggy]

She was a scared, drugged 13 year old girl.

Jeez there are some sick ppl here.

I don't think you find anyone who says they're drunk or drugged say they were scared, Quayled are not that strong especially a third hit

Your babbling incoherence is difficult to translate. It looks like you are somehow trying to suggest that a small dose of a quaalude wouldn't have much of an effect on a 13 year old girl. Given that you are functionally illiterate, it seems apparent that you are not a pharmocologist, so there's no reason to credit your amateur opinion on the subject.

Meanwhile, back here in the real world, it is immoral and criminal to force sex on any person of any age; it is even worse to do so to a child; and it is worse yet to do so to a drugged child.

WTF is wrong with you? The hideous scumbag, Roman Pedophile Polanski admitted doing all those things to the victim in this case. So you are offering support to a degenerate confessed pedophile. There is no excuse for what Polanski did and there is no justification for ANYBODY offering any "support" for what that diseased bastard did. Froggy, you sick shit, you are completely wrong here. You ought to feel deep shame.

Did you do drugs in your teens, In her teenage years(the 70s) drugs and sex were everywhere.

 

[Liability]

I don't think you find anyone who says they're drunk or drugged say they were scared, Quayled are not that strong especially a third hit

Your babbling incoherence is difficult to translate. It looks like you are somehow trying to suggest that a small dose of a quaalude wouldn't have much of an effect on a 13 year old girl. Given that you are functionally illiterate, it seems apparent that you are not a pharmocologist, so there's no reason to credit your amateur opinion on the subject.

Meanwhile, back here in the real world, it is immoral and criminal to force sex on any person of any age; it is even worse to do so to a child; and it is worse yet to do so to a drugged child.

WTF is wrong with you? The hideous scumbag, Roman Pedophile Polanski admitted doing all those things to the victim in this case. So you are offering support to a degenerate confessed pedophile. There is no excuse for what Polanski did and there is no justification for ANYBODY offering any "support" for what that diseased bastard did. Froggy, you sick shit, you are completely wrong here. You ought to feel deep shame.

Did you do drugs in your teens, In her teenage years(the 70s) drugs and sex were everywhere.

It was a crime in the 70's and it remains one to this day. So the fact that drugs were supposedly "everywhere" is totally irrelevant. Giving drugs to a child was criminal. Having sexual intercourse or oral sex with a child was criminal. Forcing sex upon anybody regardless of age was criminal.

In short, you do a lot of babbling but you have managed to say nothing intelligent or intelligible on this topic.

Let's simplify this for you.

WHEN (in the 1970's up to the present moment) may a fully grown man have sexual intercourse or receive oral sex from a 13 year old child? Don't strain yourself. This is not a trick question. It is elementally simple. The sole valid answer is "never." To do so is criminal today and was criminal then. Roman Polanski did it. Therefore his action was criminal.

WHEN (in the 1970's up to the present moment) may a fully grown man (not a physician) provide controlled substances to a 13 year old child? Don't strain yourself. This, too, is not a trick question. It is elementally simple. The sole valid answer is "never." To do so in the 1970's was criminal and it is still criminal. Roman Polanski did it. Therefore his action was criminal.

So what are you attempting to justify, frog?

Support of a pedophile, child abusing, criminal scumbag like Roman Polanski (even if you are consistently incoherent in your attempt to be supportive of him) is sick. You attempt to provide support for Polanski. Therefore, you are sick. Seriously. You are morally degenerate.

 

[froggy]

Your babbling incoherence is difficult to translate. It looks like you are somehow trying to suggest that a small dose of a quaalude wouldn't have much of an effect on a 13 year old girl. Given that you are functionally illiterate, it seems apparent that you are not a pharmocologist, so there's no reason to credit your amateur opinion on the subject.

Meanwhile, back here in the real world, it is immoral and criminal to force sex on any person of any age; it is even worse to do so to a child; and it is worse yet to do so to a drugged child.

WTF is wrong with you? The hideous scumbag, Roman Pedophile Polanski admitted doing all those things to the victim in this case. So you are offering support to a degenerate confessed pedophile. There is no excuse for what Polanski did and there is no justification for ANYBODY offering any "support" for what that diseased bastard did. Froggy, you sick shit, you are completely wrong here. You ought to feel deep shame.

Did you do drugs in your teens, In her teenage years(the 70s) drugs and sex were everywhere.

It was a crime in the 70's and it remains one to this day. So the fact that drugs were supposedly "everywhere" is totally irrelevant. Giving drugs to a child was criminal. Having sexual intercourse or oral sex with a child was criminal. Forcing sex upon anybody regardless of age was criminal.

In short, you do a lot of babbling but you have managed to say nothing intelligent or intelligible on this topic.

Let's simplify this for you.

WHEN (in the 1970's up to the present moment) may a fully grown man have sexual intercourse or receive oral sex from a 13 year old child? Don't strain yourself. This is not a trick question. It is elementally simple. The sole valid answer is "never." To do so is criminal today and was criminal then. Roman Polanski did it. Therefore his action was criminal.

WHEN (in the 1970's up to the present moment) may a fully grown man (not a physician) provide controlled substances to a 13 year old child? Don't strain yourself. This, too, is not a trick question. It is elementally simple. The sole valid answer is "never." To do so in the 1970's was criminal and it is still criminal. Roman Polanski did it. Therefore his action was criminal.

So what are you attempting to justify, frog?

Support of a pedophile, child abusing, criminal scumbag like Roman Polanski (even if you are consistently incoherent in your attempt to be supportive of him) is sick. You attempt to provide support for Polanski. Therefore, you are sick. Seriously. You are morally degenerate.

As I've said all through this post i am not condoning Polanski I'm just looking at the facts as told by the victim, and it was not rape.

 

[DiamondDave]

It is amazing and disgusting, the amount of pedo defenders in this place

 

[Kat]

Did you do drugs in your teens, In her teenage years(the 70s) drugs and sex were everywhere.

It was a crime in the 70's and it remains one to this day. So the fact that drugs were supposedly "everywhere" is totally irrelevant. Giving drugs to a child was criminal. Having sexual intercourse or oral sex with a child was criminal. Forcing sex upon anybody regardless of age was criminal.

In short, you do a lot of babbling but you have managed to say nothing intelligent or intelligible on this topic.

Let's simplify this for you.

WHEN (in the 1970's up to the present moment) may a fully grown man have sexual intercourse or receive oral sex from a 13 year old child? Don't strain yourself. This is not a trick question. It is elementally simple. The sole valid answer is "never." To do so is criminal today and was criminal then. Roman Polanski did it. Therefore his action was criminal.

WHEN (in the 1970's up to the present moment) may a fully grown man (not a physician) provide controlled substances to a 13 year old child? Don't strain yourself. This, too, is not a trick question. It is elementally simple. The sole valid answer is "never." To do so in the 1970's was criminal and it is still criminal. Roman Polanski did it. Therefore his action was criminal.

So what are you attempting to justify, frog?

Support of a pedophile, child abusing, criminal scumbag like Roman Polanski (even if you are consistently incoherent in your attempt to be supportive of him) is sick. You attempt to provide support for Polanski. Therefore, you are sick. Seriously. You are morally degenerate.

As I've said all through this post i am not condoning Polanski I'm just looking at the facts as told by the victim, and it was not rape.

You are? Then if you read her testimony you know she was raped. By her own testimony she said NO.
Then you have a 44 year old man, and a 13 year old girl that he gave drugs and alcohol to. Gee, wonder why he did that? Surely it wouldn't be because he knew if she was drunk and stoned it would be easier for him.

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

 

[Contumacious]

She was a scared, drugged 13 year old girl.

Bullshit. By her own admission she was a Lolita.

Secondly , during a Grand Jury presentation accusers are not subjected to cross examination. Thirdly, DA's add bullshit accusations in order to enhance the indictment and force defendants to enter a plea.

Jeez there are some sick ppl here.

Yes, indeed there are. Stupid fucks who want to set aside Constitutional constraints in order to legally lynch Mr. Polanski.

.

 

[Kat]

She was a scared, drugged 13 year old girl.

Bullshit. By her own admission she was a Lolita.


.

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

If you read her testimony you know she was raped. By her own testimony she said NO.
Then you have a 44 year old man, and a 13 year old girl that he gave drugs and alcohol to. Gee, wonder why he did that? Surely it wouldn't be because he knew if she was drunk and stoned it would be easier for him.

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