comment #1

Bobby Cooper Superior says ...

This is where Polanski's life, however unrelatable to most of us, provides clear motivation for his continued distrust of authority, especially when the authority purports to be fair and without conflict regarding his case.

comment #2

Cadavra says ...

Leno put it best: "Give him a quaalude. He'll go willingly.

comment #3

Muscle McGurk says ...

He's enjoying the witty debate on HE so much he wants it to keep going for another couple of months.

comment #4

TimesArrow says ...

[The poster Times Arrow, a foam-at-the-mouth animal who posts at HE under many names, is banned for life for his usual ugliness.]

comment #5

pinocchio says ...

We Swiss are very proud of our system of checks and balances. In the Polanski case this means the government was hardly involved in the case. (Even the head of our justice department was only informed last friday that they would get him.)

His arrest was more or less a legalistic action. Which means in the end the Swiss supreme court will decide. There could to be some issues by the way ("public order" legal stuff and other problems) , so I wouldn't say his extradition is a given thing. Somebody understands my broken english?

comment #6

Ponderer says ...

It's a disgusting statement that Polanski gave to Amis, of course, all things considered. Unfortunately in this situation, what Polanski said may have been true. As was said in the documentary, the running joke is that Roger Gunson got the Polanski assignment because he was the only one in the D.A.'s office who hadn't screwed underage girls.

Gunson, of course, says he couldn't imagine that would be true - but then again, he's such a straight-up and reputable guy that I really believe he COULDN'T imagine that was true.

comment #7

Gogocrank says ...

And by bringing that up you suggest ... Gunson be investigated and perhaps tried now, too? I'm confused what this has to do with anything.

comment #8

Ponderer says ...

No asshole, I'm suggesting Gunson should get an award for being one of the only truly decent, incorruptible people involved in this case.

Jesus. Are you frothing at the mouth so much that you can't interpret a kind comment about a good man correctly?

comment #9

Ponderer says ...

And to clarify, I brought it up because:

1) Polanski says that everyone likes to "fuck young girls."
2) That was the joke about the whole D.A.'s office, sadly backing up Polanski's disgusting point.
3) Roger Gunson was a saint in a den of hypocrites and God bless him.

comment #10

jjgittes says ...

Jeff - The reason to fight the extradition is two-fold.

One : You may win (and there is legal grounds for him not being extradited).

Two : It allows time to build the defense if extradited and actually it ties INTO the defense down the road. Polanski's going to argue here that he served the terms of his plea deal and the guilty verdict should stand with no further jail time.

The fleeing they will argue was due to judicial misconduct. Giving in to the extradition willingly contradicts those arguments (in a way). His position is or is going to be - I did my time, leave me alone.

comment #11

Majorian99 says ...

If anyone still reads this thread in our horse-fly attention-span reality -- here goes something for the foaming pitch-forkers --

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/opinion/03iht-edsokol.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=polanski&st=cse

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beth-arnold/letter-from-paris-the-sou_b_308184.html

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/how-polanskis-probation-officer-saw-his-crime/#more-41499

comment #12

Gordon27 says ...

"1) Polanski says that everyone likes to "fuck young girls.""

I can only wish Polanski's lawyers were as bad at defending him as you are. Good lord, you've actually sunk *further* than claiming that the LA DA's office raped the victim worse than Polanski. Are you as morally deficient as the posts you choose to make, or are you really just grasping at any argument you can make no matter how absurd or stupid it is?

comment #13

Gogocrank says ...

Christ, Ponderer. Chill out. I misread your post, and I'm sorry (I had my own little kids running around here at the time). And I'd hardly call any of my posts "frothing," especially given the bar set by others. Like people who snap and call other people "asshole."

comment #14

Gordon27 says ...

"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beth-arnold/letter-from-paris-the-sou_b_308184.html"

Yes, she's right. Raping a girl and fleeing the country is exactly the same as showing a breast on TV. That's even better than Jeff comparing Letterman to Polanski.

I've realized, though, that Polanski defenders have taken their arguing tactics from people who watched and believed 'Loose Change'. "The LA DA office railroaded Polanski" is the new "Steel wouldn't melt at that temperature".

comment #15

Gordon27 says ...

"http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/opinion/03iht-edsokol.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=polanski&st=cse"

This article is a little more competent than the other two, but there's one central problem with it, and that's this quote:

"As he has not, as far as we know, committed any crimes in the three decades he has been living in France and Switzerland, the objective of deterring him from committing a future crime carries no force."

Punishing a criminal is not solely meant to prevent the criminal himself from committing a crime (you could say incarceration itself is meant to literally restrict the criminal's ability to commit a crime, but that's not the same thing). It is also intended to inspire other people to not commit the crime, to believe that they will be punished if they do.

comment #16

Majorian99 says ...

Many of you should do your research -- there ample info out there from a lot of different aspects.

Samantha's mother, Suzie Gailey, was living with the editor of MARIJUANA MONTHLY having a very strange orgies including underage girls including guess who -- she's been experimenting herself quite a bit. This is a story bigger then OJ's when it blows open. All that craziness and Sizue's and Samantha role in that has been very much played down very consciously. A trial woud mean the whole lid would blow open on a hangar full of worms and the press would've have a field day...

I don't bother to go further because it is not worth my time to debate any of you. Sorry. Have a great life.

I do think what Roman did was awful and crazy but it's not the worst by any measure that's going on right now. If all this heat was going against our bankers who raping the world and causing so much death in wake of the economic downturn, at the lack of public option it seems for Americans and at sending Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld to the international criminal tribunal in Hague for swift justice for the genocide in Iraq -- I'll be on that boat.

There were talking big crimes, unforgivable crimes and they're imminent and very in the now. That would be worth all these pitchforks...

With some cation though. Fair and correct justice before all...

comment #17

Majorian99 says ...

Just for the record -- if you read that probation report article I linked to at NY Times -- it clearly states that some kind of semen was found on Samantha's pants but neither in the nether regions. She had not washed herself before the test were made and they would 100% sure show bits of semen just 14-20 hours after the alleged intercourse. No damage or irritiation was found on her body anywhere.

There goes her witness statement that he ejaculated inside her. That's just one of about 20 things in her witness statements that contradicts witnesses and evidence...

The German and French media are already booking houses and offices outside Samantha's house -- she's going to be watch and scrutinized like nothing else in the next coming years. She's going to see these full-time reporters everyday...

This is so important. More important than the banking fiasco...

comment #18

DarthCorleone says ...

I'll acknowledge those two pieces that appeared in the Times make some semblance of sense (even if I do not agree with the end conclusion), but that piece from the Huffington Post is a joke. Yes, not only is the Janet Jackson comparison inept, as Gordon27 mentions, but the O.J. comparison is flat out stupid. O.J. completed his criminal trial, remember? He was found not guilty. People might hem and haw now that they believe him to be guilty, but I have never heard any of those same people asking that he be tried a second time for the same crime, which is an outright violation of due process. We're still waiting for Polanski's criminal trial to be completed.

comment #19

DarthCorleone says ...

Majorian99 >> If you want to make the argument that the LA district attorney's office could be making better use of its time and resources, then I'll accept that. But acting like that they need to devote their energies to the banking crisis seems a bit much. That is a straw man and a half.

So perhaps you're strictly talking about us - spending so much of our time ranting about this case as opposed to ranting about the economy? Well, I - and most commenters on the internet - really don't have insight into how to solve the current complex mess that is our economy. I can complain about it certainly, but - honestly - I don't find the ebbs and flows of our economy over the years as outrageous as the violation of an individual's rights via rape. That does not mean the former does not indirectly cause ills just as great; it's just that the latter is much more easily addressed. Most of us are able to easily wrap our minds around the simple concept of justice and completing a criminal trial, and that's why we're up in arms over this.

comment #20

DarthCorleone says ...

Majorian99 >> Regarding the physical evidence - and I'm not asking this to be argumentative but rather out of curiosity - how do you know she had not washed herself before the test? There is no mention of that in the story. Was it mentioned in some other source of yours?

comment #21

DarthCorleone says ...

And - I'm sorry - I know you're above this discussion with the "have a great life" wish and repeated urges that our pitchforks should be pointed elsewhere, but how is that in one post you acknowledge "what Roman did was awful and crazy" and then in the next post claim that there are "20 things" in her witness statement that have been completely debunked?

That's rather moot to me regardless. We can be outraged over the witness statement, but as for me I'm simply seeking due process on the charge to which he plead guilty. If the legal wrangling results in a reversal of the plea, then it seems more valid to debate the truth of the grand jury testimony.

comment #22

Ponderer says ...

"I can only wish Polanski's lawyers were as bad at defending him as you are. Good lord, you've actually sunk *further* than claiming that the LA DA's office raped the victim worse than Polanski. Are you as morally deficient as the posts you choose to make, or are you really just grasping at any argument you can make no matter how absurd or stupid it is?"

Where did I say anything about the behavior being WORSE than Polanski's? SHOW ME ONE PLACE. ONE. I've simply said that the current actions by the legal authorities involved and the media are causing her more and more harm.

I don't think that what the justice system and media have done are worse than Polanski raping her -- though SHE does: "And honestly, the publicity surrounding it was so traumatic that what he did to me seemed to pale in comparison."

But I'm sick and tired of you asserting that I'm a Polanski apologist. I don't know how many times I need to fucking say it. He committed rape. If I were the family, I would have demanded the maximum jail time available when he pled guilty. I think he was a coward when he fled, and worse when he refused to come back when the ostensible legal threats were over (and still can). I think he should be a registered sexual offender.

I don't give a shit about Polanski. He raped a child. I hope he burns in hell. But I care about the victim. I'm sorry. I don't believe you care about anything but concepts of right and wrong.

And incidentally? FUCK your greater good. The greater good to me is treating the victim like a human being. Not like a sexual object by a predator like Polanski, and not like an object for to well-intentioned to fulfill their goals of societal betterment.

Justice that requires the destruction of the victim's life IS NOT JUSTICE.

Gogocrank,

Apologies. I'm just getting cranky at people that conflate my concern for the victim - and belief that the L.A. District Attorney's office is the most corrupt and incompetent law-enforcement division in America - with thinking that Polanski is a auteur who made a boo-boo and we should all shake his hand and make up and worship at his feet.

You misread what I posted, and I appreciate the clarification.

comment #23

DeeZee says ...

Majorian: Living with the guy isn't the same thing as being aware of and condoning his behavior.

comment #24

sun1986225 says ...

thank you for sharing the post,it is really good @, i just got a best present,
MTS変換 Mac
Mod変換 Mac
mts変換 mac
VOB 変換Mac
M2TS変換 Mac
M4V 変換for Mac
動画変換mac
DAT変換
you can have a try

comment #25

Natali Watson says ...

Hello friends,this is a nice site and I wanted to post a note to let you know, good job! Thanks
Best regards, Natali, CEO of top music
download music for free