Roman Polanski accused of unlawful sex with a minor

You know I love you delph, but you're not doing yourself any favors with this. As much as I hate Ziobro I don't think it's ethnic animus.

Most likely reasons are a combination of wanting to distract the public especially low information PiS supporters and to curry favor with Washington (not realizing that the US probably really doesn't want to deal with the sexual abuse of minors in Hollywood).

That's a very good point

I think that's part of it, but the PiS controlled media has been salivating over Polanski for years - it's a very, very cheap way to reassure the more hardcore electorate, especially given that the opposition couldn't really care less about someone that pled guilty to having sex with a child. PiS have had some problems with the more loony right getting hysterical over Duda getting cosy with the Jewish community as well, so this sort of thing reassures their anti-Jewish credentials as it were.

Couldn't agree more. The man, disgusting though he be, entered into an agreement with the US legal system and they subjectively shafted him. As Smurf says, if the system wasn't so sick, he would have been bang to rights and spent several years in the State Pen.

As the system wanted to cheat him, he cheated them.

None of Ziobro's business, but what the hypocritical Neo-Con right want. Luckily the supreme Court will bust a gut laughing.

Face it gentlemen, if the U.S.A. really wanted him they would come get him.

For once I agree with you. I'll even go further. If he ever does end up in US custody I predict he'll "commit suicide" before he's able to make the chronic child sexual abusers in Hollywood uncomfortable.

The judge isn't about to dismiss it even after Polanski's forty year sentence.
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A Los Angeles judge on Friday denied the impassioned plea of Roman Polanski's victim to end a four-decade-old sexual assault case against the fugitive director.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon ruled that Polanski must return to California if he expects to resolve charges of sexually abusing a teen.

No doubt Roman would die in prison being now he is 84 years old.

Are you talking about the new, yet another, rape accuser? Because there is one!

foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/08/15/gloria-allred-reveals-new-roman-polanski-sexual-assault-accuser.html

Sick Hollywood Libs protect this Cretin!

There is actually an interesting Documentary on HBO

Now there are three accusations. The one who is confirmed as a victim, the 13 year old, wants the matter to be forgotten. The other two complainants don't. Hard to understand why France, Switzerland or Poland don't extradite him back to the US.

He is like 84, a one of those who has been living too long for his own good. A holocaust survivor will end up dying in a prison if they nab him, sad.

Yes. It could have (and should have) all been dealt with decades ago. The thing he's guilty of and was sentenced for - he should have served the time in jail, and the other two allegations (whether innocent or guilty) could either have gone to trial or not (depending on the quality/amount of evidence) and either his innocence proven or guilt proven.

statute of limitations? My own feeling is that there's a conflict between a few judges and the powers-that-be do not want to open up the pandora's box of systematic child abuse in hollywood

if he ever is taken into custody I expect there will be an unexpect 'suicide'

What is the statute of limitations there for sexual offences, and when were the alleged crimes first reported?

Polanski plead guilty. There is no statute of limitations when a convicted criminal like Polanski absconds from serving a prison sentence.

I mean for these new accusations.

California eliminated the statute of limitations in 2016 and this went into effect in 2017.

Source: npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/28/495856974/california-eliminates-statute-of-limitations-on-rape-cases

But like all "get tough" laws that Baby Boomers introduce they are never retroactive. And if Polanski was allowed to slither out from serving a full sentence following his conviction for this long then it is pretty much certain that any new charges would finally get him extradited back to the US to face the music.

Not if he stays in France. France does not extradite French citizens.

Correction: If he got away with raping a child for this long then any new charges wouldn't get him extradited back to the US.


Well, of course not. After all, the lefty-lauded pedophile handbook Lolita was first published in Paris. The French would never give up one of their own whether they had French citizenship or not.

@jon357

I believe 2 years for everything but murder but don't quote me on that.. Not sure if it applies to things like rape sexual assault etc. To my understanding the only thing in the us that has no statue of limitations is murder and Rico type of stuff.

Also you can't be tried for something before a new law got passed. So if say yesterday you cashed a forged check and tomorrow a law was enacted for such a crime you can't be punished for it.

Also in the us we have double jeapordy so you can't be tried for the same crime twice.

In neither a lawyer nor legal expert so don't take my word for the absolute truth but I'm pretty certain that's generally how it works here. If someone is knowledgeable in this and I've made a mistake plz correct me so we can all know.

Is that two years affected by when a crime is reported, i.e. if she reported it before 2 years was up?


We had that for centuries, however they got rid of it when DNA proved certain individuals who'd been acquitted were in fact guilty.

@jon357

I believe 2 years from the date it occurred. So if say a woman say a guy raped her 3 years ago the statue of limitations has ended. Again though I'm not 100% certain if its for rape cases but that's generally the rule of thumb. For example I was hit by a drunk driver like 10 years ago and lawyers bugged me nonstop to sue the guy. Some even showed up to my house knocking on my door. As a broke college student delivering pizzas to make ends meet I sure could have used the money I felt bad though bc I didn't want to ruin the guys life. He was the same age as me and was already dealing w a dui so I didn't want to kick him when he was down. However I was sent a hospital/ambulance bill totalling some 10k which my student health insurance covered for the most part but still left a several thousand dollar bill. So long story short eventually I did find a lawyer and we agreed that his insurance would cover my medical bills but that I specifically said I refused to sue him personally. He was the son of a wealthy dentist and wanted to go to the marines so I didn't wanna mess that up for him. Were actually still friends now since we've seen each other so many times bc of this. Anyway the point in getting at is I remember my attorney rushing me to like file everything and set up a court date bc the 2 year statue of limitations was bout to end.

For its opposite. The us justice system is very quick to charge people for crimes esp prior to DNA. If someone say was arrested before DNA testing he or she will have to petition courts get DNA testing on the evidence and all this other stuff. It could take years or decades. Every few months there's a story here how Chicago pd arrested some guy on murder charges and some 5 10 20 years he's cleared and given several million. Unfortunately prison changes a lot of people and half use it wisely other half blow their money and commit criminal acts

With us it's a bit different - it's about the time lapsed between a crime and reporting a crime. Although there's no statute of limitations for sexual offences in the UK, two years is still a magic number.

If it turns out the report is false, a false report less than 2 years after the alleged event is wasting police time. Above two years, it's attempting to pervert the course of justice, much more serious.

For Polanski, he's actually got a conviction, fled the law, and needs to return to deal with this. Any other legal compalints can be made abroad in countries where the jurisdiction for sex crimes includes those committed elsewhere.

From what I gather, the general objection in Europe is that his trial was unfair, so countries here are unwilling to extradite him on that basis.

Have you read about his conviction and how it came about? The whole plea bargain stuff is incredibly murky, as is the way that the judge was influenced.

I'm not too familiar with his trial and the situation. Has got very powerful friends all around the world im sure he'll be fine he just has to be careful where he goes and all. So one of the victims is changing her story and asking Polanski not to be prosecuted? Am I understanding that correctly? I wonder if she got paid off.. This is a tricky situation from just a brief summary I've read about it.

It seems that the rich and powerful cam get away with pretty much anything. One guy from the powerful duke family raped someone and the judge refused to send him to prison because he 'wouldn't fair well there.' same with Clinton and Epstein.

Meanwhile those who exposed corruption fraud quid pro quo deals like assange or those who exposed surveillance of us citizens like snowden are stuck.

If they really wanted to grab him they could. Kind of like the guy who hid out in Rome after disclosing Israel's secret nuke program. He was honey potted by a mossad agent, drugged, and sent to Israel to stand trial. I believe he got something like 18 or 20 years.

It's a pretty bad situation. Polanski originally agreed a deal where they would drop most of the charges in exchange for a single guilty plea of unlawful sex with a minor, and it seems a deal was done for him to him to get probation on condition that he left the USA. The district attorney then met the judge privately, and convinced him to actually put Polanski back to prison, which was a crime under some sort of law designed to stop judges being influenced.

For me, no-one comes out of this looking good, but the general argument against deporting him is that with all the media attention, it will be nearly impossible for him to get a fair trial.

One odd thing about the story - Polanski was photographing her topless. Where the hell were her parents? :/

Her mother (who was an actress and model) had agreed to a photoshoot apparently. He'd told her the photos were for the French edition of Vogue. The fact that she'd allowed an unaccompanied photoshoot is a whole other issue.

Interestingly, the photoshoot was the second of two, held at jack Nicholson's house, and Anjelica Huston was on the premises at the time.

There's never been a shortage of parents willing to vuhore out their children for a shot at celebrity (and that sweet, sweet money)

The fact that Anjelica Houston didn't think anything weird was going on (she'd lived in hollywood her whole life?) is a very damning indictment of the milieu...

When CGI gets better child actors should be replaced with computer simulations.

@delphiandomine

Damn that's messed up. See in the us the prosecutor oftentimes has more power than the judge. The prosecutor will make a deal with the defendant and his attorney(s) and the judge will decide whether to accept it or not which they almost always do. I don't remember the exact stats but the vast majority of cases are settled with a plea bargain something like 95 97% plus. Trials are rare unless either the defense is totally confident that they'll win, the defendant has nothing to lose I.e. he's charged with multiple murders or something really bad (and even then often times such cases end in a plea) or the lawyer convinced his client to go with a trial to boost the lawyers payments and prestige if he or she wins. In smaller misdemeanor or low level felony cases wealthier clients will often chose a bench trial option with a judge whom the defense attorney is friendly with.

Anyway something sounds rather fishy. Again I don't have much knowledge on this case but usually the prosecutor/d.a. is the one who offers the plea (a deal) with defense. The judge merely signs off on it and 99.9% of the time the judge will accept a plea the prosecutor and defense worked out as the judge doesn't have the time to do the leg work and is merely there to grant or deny motions preside over trials etc. So it seems weird for da/prosecutor to go back on a plea that he more than likely previously agreed to.