Libtard Finally Admits to Raping A Child...Then Declares The Matter Is OVER...Because He Says So.

[EvilCat Breath]

Here's the issue, I think what he did is absolutely wrong, however if people are outraged they need to change the laws so there is no statute of limitations on crimes like child rape, just like there isn't on murder.

The difference is, the Polanski case has nothing to do with the statute of limitations. Polanski was tried and convicted. He evaded sentencing and there is no statute of limitations.

 

[ChrisL]

"Oh, she's only 13, but she's on drugs and is messed up, so it's okay if I **** her." That is some demented thought process.

Did the guys who fucked her previously get arrested? Or how about the guys who fucked her between the ages of 13-18?

Or do we just go after the one who is a celebrity? Because the one thing we enjoy more than building celebrities up in this country is tearing them down.

He admitted to what he did and he went to jail. Wanting to punish him beyond that because you don't like his politics seems a bit... harsh.

You go after people you KNOW took advantage of little girls! WTF is wrong with you?

 

[Lewdog]

I really don't think this is about being a celebrity. It's more about the fact he was her boss and used it to his advantage.

Her boss? She was there to supposedly get a photo shoot done. and I'm not sure what kind of mother leaves her 13 year old daughter alone with a guy in Jack Nicholson's house unless she was expecting exactly what happened to happen.

Yes he was technically her boss as he was supposed to be taking pictures of her for the French version of Vogue magazine as he was one of their editors.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

"Oh, she's only 13, but she's on drugs and is messed up, so it's okay if I **** her." That is some demented thought process.

Those thought processes might be pertinent at trial. The trial is long over. The man was convicted so all the justifications and excuses don't mean squat. He evaded sentencing. He can come back, appear before a judge and get sentenced.

 

[ChrisL]

Some of us do that... but it doesn't make it right. Victim blaming is very real, and VERY wrong.

Maybe the "victim" deserves blame sometimes.

This was a promiscuous 13 year old girl who was on the wrong track in her life. Even she admits this. Even she admit that the state has gone a little nutty still going after Polanski after all this time.

ANd I don't even like Polanski all that much. I think his movies are shit. I mean, holy ******* crap, you spend two hours watching a movie called "Rosemary's Baby" and you don't even get to see the ******* baby.

You are fucked. Do you blame rape victims? What about college girls who go out and get drunk and get raped on campus?

 

[easyt65]

Polanski was tried and convicted. He evaded sentencing and there is no statute of limitations.

...or at least evaded the potential ultimate increased sentencing.

 

[JoeB131]

Careful with the use of the word 'WE', Joe. 'WE' don't make excuses for child rape. As this thread has shown, LIBERALS make excuses for child rape. And there is a difference between claiming one's innocence of charges, requiring a jury trial, and making excuses for child rape. This POS did not declare his innocence - he admitted to raping a child.

He admitted to having sex with a 13 year old who had sex with other men.

He agreed to a sentence for doing so. And served that sentence.

You have to ask why the prosecutor agreed to a light sentence. Probably because they did a background investigation into this girl and her mom and found out they were professional grifters.

 

[ChrisL]

"Oh, she's only 13, but she's on drugs and is messed up, so it's okay if I **** her." That is some demented thought process.

Did the guys who fucked her previously get arrested? Or how about the guys who fucked her between the ages of 13-18?

Or do we just go after the one who is a celebrity? Because the one thing we enjoy more than building celebrities up in this country is tearing them down.

He admitted to what he did and he went to jail. Wanting to punish him beyond that because you don't like his politics seems a bit... harsh.

Correction, you are more than likely defending a CHILD RAPIST due to his politics.

 

[JoeB131]

You are fucked. Do you blame rape victims? What about college girls who go out and get drunk and get raped on campus?

Naw, that would be conservatives who do that. You guys are the ones trying to roll back protections for those girls.

But a couple of professional grifters trying to blackmail a celebrity... a lot less sympathetic about that.

 

[ChrisL]

In March 1977, film director Roman Polanski was arrested and charged in Los Angeles with five offenses against Samantha Gailey, a 13-year-old girl[1] – rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.[2] At his arraignment Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges,[3] but later accepted a plea bargain whose terms included dismissal of the five initial charges[4] in exchange for a guilty plea to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse.[4][5]

Polanski underwent a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation,[6] and a report was submitted to the court recommending probation.[7] However, upon learning that he was likely to face imprisonment and deportation,[5][8] Polanski fled to France in February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced.[9] Since then Polanski has mostly lived in France and has avoided visiting countries likely to extradite him to the United States.

Roman Polanski sexual abuse case - Wikipedia

 

[JoeB131]

Correction, you are more than likely defending a CHILD RAPIST due to his politics.

Not at all. He admitted what he did and served a sentence that the state agreed do.

I'm still waiting for you guys to lock up Ted Nugent for banging Courtney Love when she was underage.

 

[ChrisL]

You are fucked. Do you blame rape victims? What about college girls who go out and get drunk and get raped on campus?

Naw, that would be conservatives who do that. You guys are the ones trying to roll back protections for those girls.

But a couple of professional grifters trying to blackmail a celebrity... a lot less sympathetic about that.

Who is "you guys"? WHO is trying to "roll back" protections, you idiot? You are the ONLY one defending a child rapist.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Under fierce questioning by several dozen reporters, she steadfastly refused to claim that she had been damaged by Polanski, who was charged was raping her in 1977 when she was 13. Instead she said the legal system had abused both her and Polanski almost from the beginning of the case.

“I was a young and sexually active teenager,” Geimer told reporters, insisting that she had not been deeply scarred by her sex and drug encounter with Polanski. She said both she and her mother had suffered more harm from those who focused attention on her from the beginning.

NAMBLA much?

 

[ChrisL]

Geimer was quoted in a later article as saying that Huston became suspicious of what was going on behind the closed bedroom door and began banging on it, but left when Polanski insisted they were finishing up the photo shoot.[14] "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there."[15] In a 2003 interview, she recalled that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and described how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this".[16]

Geimer testified that Polanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a quaalude,[17] and despite her protests, he performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex acts upon her,[18][19] each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.[12][20][21][22]

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Careful with the use of the word 'WE', Joe. 'WE' don't make excuses for child rape. As this thread has shown, LIBERALS make excuses for child rape. And there is a difference between claiming one's innocence of charges, requiring a jury trial, and making excuses for child rape. This POS did not declare his innocence - he admitted to raping a child.

He admitted to having sex with a 13 year old who had sex with other men.

He agreed to a sentence for doing so. And served that sentence.

You have to ask why the prosecutor agreed to a light sentence. Probably because they did a background investigation into this girl and her mom and found out they were professional grifters.

That's where you're wrong. Polanski never served any sentence at all. After he was found guilty, the judge set a date for sentencing to give Polanski time to tie up his loose ends. This is very common. Then Polanski heard a rumor that the Judge was going to reject the plea agreement because of the violence of the act. The girl was not only drugged and raped, but sodomized which caused bodily injury. Afraid that 50 days would turn into 50 years, he ran.

 

[JoeB131]

In March 1977, film director Roman Polanski was arrested and charged in Los Angeles with five offenses against Samantha Gailey, a 13-year-old girl[1] – rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.[2] At his arraignment Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges,[3] but later accepted a plea bargain whose terms included dismissal of the five initial charges[4] in exchange for a guilty plea to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse.[4][5]

Polanski underwent a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation,[6] and a report was submitted to the court recommending probation.[7] However, upon learning that he was likely to face imprisonment and deportation,[5][8] Polanski fled to France in February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced.[9] Since then Polanski has mostly lived in France and has avoided visiting countries likely to extradite him to the United States.

exactly. The state agreed to drop most of the charges because they were bullshit. He accepted a plea bargain, and the state tried to renege on the agreed sentence.

 

[JoeB131]

That's where you're wrong. Polanski never served any sentence at all.

Yes, he did. He spent 42 days of a 90 day sentence in a state prison hospital...after which the doctors there decided he wasn't a threat and wasn't likely to do it again.

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, I'm sure this girl (woman now) is pretty embarrassed and ashamed, and doesn't really want to rehash all of this, which is totally normal for someone who has experienced a rape. They self blame, and that is totally normal. That is not the POINT at all. The point is that this guy is obviously not under control of himself enough to NOT drug and rape young girls. Young girls need to be protected from such predatory individuals who would rather prey on naive teenagers than women their own age group.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he traveled to Europe to complete filming.[29] Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days.[30] Polanski's lawyers had the expectation that Polanski would get only probation at the subsequent sentencing hearing, with the probation officer, examining psychiatrist, and the victim all recommending against jail time.[31]

However, it is alleged in the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, that things changed after an ex parte conversation between LA Deputy District Attorney David Wells and the judge, Laurence J. Rittenband. Wells was not an attorney of record on the case, but was an attorney for the State of California, which was a party to the case. Thus, the communication with Wells was a one-sided external communication, which is prohibited by ethics law. Wells allegedly showed the judge a photo of Polanski with his arms around some ostensibly underage girls, and convinced Rittenband that Polanski should not be released.

Polanski's attorneys assert that the judge suggested to them that he would send the director to prison and order him deported.[5] In response to the threat of imprisonment, Polanski bought a one-way ticket to England and fled the United States.[2] Shortly after Polanski fled, Rittenband denied he ever did anything that the 2008 documentary would go on to allege, by issuing the following statement:

I then stated that an appropriate sentence would be for Mr. Polanski to serve out the remainder of the 90-day period for which he had been sent to Chino, provided Mr. Polanski were to be deported by the Immigration and Naturalization Bureau, by stipulation or otherwise, at the end of the 90 days. I expressly stated that I was aware that the court lacked authority to order Mr. Polanski deported directly or as a condition of probation. However, based on the facts before me, I believed that the safety and welfare of the citizens of California required that Mr. Polanski be kept out of circulation for more than 90 days. However, since Mr. Polanski is an alien who had pleaded guilty to an act of moral turpitude, I believe that the interests of the citizens of California could be adequately safeguarded by a shorter jail term if Mr. Polanski would thereafter absent himself from the country.[32]

Polanski fled initially to London on 1 February 1978, where he maintained a residence. A day later he traveled on to France, where he held citizenship, avoiding the risk of extradition to the United States by Britain. Consistent with its extradition treaty with the United States, France can refuse to extradite its own citizens,[33] and an extradition request later filed by U.S. officials was denied. The United States government could have requested that Polanski be prosecuted on the California charges by the French authorities.[34] Polanski has never returned to England, and later sold his home there. The United States could still request the arrest and extradition of Polanski from other countries should he visit them, and Polanski avoided visits to countries (such as the UK) that were likely to extradite him and mostly travelled and worked in France, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland.[citation needed] In 1979, Polanski gave a controversial interview with the novelist Martin Amis in which, discussing his conviction, he said "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… *******, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to **** young girls. Juries want to **** young girls. Everyone wants to **** young girls!"[35][36][37][38]

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Geimer was quoted in a later article as saying that Huston became suspicious of what was going on behind the closed bedroom door and began banging on it, but left when Polanski insisted they were finishing up the photo shoot.[14] "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there."[15] In a 2003 interview, she recalled that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and described how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this".[16]

Geimer testified that Polanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a quaalude,[17] and despite her protests, he performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex acts upon her,[18][19] each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.[12][20][21][22]

All totally meaningless. It's appropriate for trial, which is long over.

 

[JoeB131]

You go after people you KNOW took advantage of little girls! WTF is wrong with you?

There was a plea agreement in place, because the state knew that these grifters wouldn't withstand a background check.

Yes he was technically her boss as he was supposed to be taking pictures of her for the French version of Vogue magazine as he was one of their editors.

That's really a stretch.