Whoopi Defends Polanski: ‘It wasn’t rape-rape.’ — Polanski The Pervert — Anne Applebaum: The Outrageous Arrest of Roman Polanski — Patterico’s Pontifications: L.A. Times Front Page Headline: Polanski Merely “Accused” of Sexual Assault — The_Anchoress: A Study in Contrasts — Polemiquepolitique Blog: Where is the problem?
“I know it wasn’t rape-rape. It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and and when they let him out he was like ‘You know what, this guy’s going to give me a hundred years in jail I’m not staying,’ so that’s why he left.” (Whoopi on the “Liberal” View)
Sympathetic new film can’t conceal creepiness of fugitive director
Smoking Gun: JUNE 10–With last night’s HBO premiere of a sympathetic new documentary about Roman Polanski’s underage sex escapades, we’re reprising the harrowing 1977 grand jury testimony of the 13-year-old California girl with whom the director had sex after plying her with Champagne and a Quaalude at the Los Angeles home of Jack Nicholson. Polanski, now 74, fled the U.S. for Europe before he could be sentenced for the sex crime and remains a fugitive from justice.
In graphic testimony, Samantha Gailey described the illicit encounter with Polanski, which began with her posing naked in a Jacuzzi for him as he purportedly snapped photos for French Vogue. From there, Polanski approached her in a bedroom of Nicholson’s Mulholland Drive home and, despite her demands that he “keep away,” sought to kiss Gailey.
The teenager, an aspiring model, testified that Polanski, 43 at the time, later performed a sex act on her and “started to have intercourse with me.” She also testified that Polanski…] … […after asking her, “Would you want me to go in through your back?” Gailey, now known as Samantha Geimer, is interviewed in “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” which was first screened earlier this year at the Sundance Film Festival.
LuckyBogey Note: Read the “graphic” Testimony and decide for yourself– especially the last few pages (30 Double Spaced Pages Total). As the father of a daughter, I know what I would have done. You can put this in the Bank! I’m like a Beagle with my nose to the ground, I will find you no matter how long it takes and Revenge is Mine Said The Lord!
Anne Elizabeth Applebaum (born in Wasington, D.C. 25 July 1964 Charles Douglas-Home Memorial Trust Award.(age 45)) is a journalist and Pulitzer Prize-winning author who has written extensively about communism and the development of civil society in Central and Eastern Europe. She has been an editor at The Economist, and a member of the editorial board of the Washington Post (2002–2006). She was an editor at The Spectator, and a columnist for both the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph. She also wrote for The Independent. Working for The Economist, she provided coverage of important social and political transitions in Eastern Europe, both before and after the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. In 1992 she was awarded the
Applebaum lived in London and Warsaw during the 1990s, and was for several years a widely read columnist for London’s Evening Standard newspaper. She wrote about the workings of Westminster, and opined on issues foreign and domestic. Applebaum’s first book, Between East and West, is a travelogue, and was awarded an Adolph Bentinck Prize in 1996. Her second book, Gulag: A History, was published in 2003 and was awarded the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction writing. The Pulitzer committee named Gulag a “landmark work of historical scholarship and an indelible contribution to the complex, ongoing, necessary quest for truth.” Applebaum is fluent in English, French, Polish and Russian. She is married to Radosław Sikorski, the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs. They have two children, Alexander and Tadeusz. Source: Wiki
Washington Post: By Anne Applebaum | September 27, 2009
Of all nations, why was it Switzerland — the country that traditionally guarded the secret bank accounts of international criminals and corrupt dictators — that finally decided to arrest Roman Polanski? There must be some deeper story here, because by any reckoning the decision was bizarre — though not nearly as bizarre as the fact that a U.S. judge wants to keep pursuing this case after so many decades.
Here are some of the facts: Polanski’s crime — statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl — was committed in 1977. The girl, now 45, has said more than once that she forgives him, that she can live with the memory, that she does not want him to be put back in court or in jail, and that a new trial will hurt her husband and children. There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.
He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski’s mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland. His pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson, though for a time Polanski himself was a suspect.
I am certain there are many who will harrumph that, following this arrest, justice was done at last. But Polanski is 76. To put him on trial or keep him in jail does not serve society in general or his victim in particular. Nor does it prove the doggedness and earnestness of the American legal system. If he weren’t famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all.
Patterico’s Pontifications – September 28, 2009
I woke up this morning to this headline on the front page of the L.A. Times:
Excuse me? He is more than merely “accused” of unlawful sex with a minor. He pled guilty to it. And, moving on the teaser on the right for Patrick Goldstein’s piece, it will not cost the L.A. District Attorney (for whom I work but do not speak) much to “prosecute” Polanski — because we don’t have to “prosecute” him. We need only represent the People at the sentencing for the charge to which Polanski pled guilty.
Nowhere on the front page does the paper explain to readers that Polanski pled guilty — much less mention that a 13-year-old girl testified to a grand jury that Polanski had provided her with part of a Quaalude and champagne before anally raping her and ejaculating inside her anus. (Excerpts of her testimony are provided in my takedown of Goldstein’s piece.) The article includes some of this information on the back pages that hardly anybody reads — the paper there reveals the drugging, the plea, and a sanitized version of the anal rape (he “forced himself on her”). But those who merely read the front page (and that’s many people, if not most) could be forgiven if they concluded that Polanski has yet to be put on trial.
This has been installment #56,447 in my ongoing series: “Why Nobody Trusts The L.A. Times.”
Two Polish men.
Both persecuted by Nazis, in their native land. One was a prisoner, one was a slave. When the Nazis left, the Communists came.
One, Roman Polanski, becomes a filmmaker. He encounters a 13 year old girl.
One, Karol Wojtyla, becomes a priest. He too, encounters a 13 year old girl.
After his encounter, the filmmaker -still a youngish man- runs away, out into the world, saying “everyone wants to do what I did.” He lives what is for the most part a rather good life, with privileges and honors and worldly accolades. He travels to many places, attracting admirers. At age 76, in the course of accepting yet another award, he becomes a martyr to some, for the crime of forcing himself on the 13 year old.
After his encounter, the priest -still a youngish man- opens his arms and runs out into the world, saying “Do not be afraid; open wide the doors to Christ”. He lives what is for the most part, a rather good life, despite multiple assassination attempts and a cruel debilitating illness. He travels the world, attracting huge crowds for the worship of Christ. At over 80 years of age, he is still traveling and reaching out to young people, still carrying them on his hunched back and kindling warmth for them. He dies at age 83, and the whole world stops, and marks his death, and mourns. By the millions, the young travel to Rome from every continent, to mark his passing and to shout “Sancto subito!”
Two men who suffered under the jackboot of totalitarianism and the disregard for human life and human dignity…]
Polemiquepolitique Blog (FR) (English Translation)
In France everyone is for “the rule of law,” everyone is against pedophilia, and everyone agrees it is normal to hunt for old men alleged to have committed crimes even over the age of 65 years. For one we take an old pedophile and that we respect the rules of law (though not ours) why so much fuss? I read somewhere (reviews of articles on 20minutes.fr actually) that Switzerland would do better to look to make gold that the Nazis had stolen from the Jews rather than to imprison a Jew whose family would have been exterminated by the Nazis themselves. I hope this is not the real reason.
Où est le problème ? En France tout le monde est pour “l’état de droit”, tout le monde est contre la pédophilie, et tout le monde trouve tout à fait normal que l’on traque des vieillards supposés avoir commis des crimes il y a plus de 65 ans. Pour une fois qu’on tient un vieux pédophile et que l’on respecte les règles du Droit (même si ce n’est pas le nôtre) pourquoi tant de remue-ménage ? J’ai lu quelque part (les commentaires d’articles sur 20minutes.fr en fait) que la Suisse ferait mieux de s’occuper de rendre l’or que les Nazis auraient volé aux Juifs plutôt que d’emprisonner un Juif dont la famille aurait été exterminée par ces mêmes Nazis. J’espère que ce n’est pas la vraie raison.
Susan Estrich: Roman the Rapist