ans Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 You are Roman Polanski and I claim my £5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 The silly thing about this is that if the only witness refuses to testify, they have no case. And I reckon she will refuse to testify. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 He's already been convicted. She doesn't have to testify. Grand Jury or not, this is what she said happened to her. Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug, and "despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her", each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 But he is a celelebrity, if it was Billy the milkman he would be in protective with the other nonces---no splitting hairs [npi] the mans a paedophile and should be penalised---no get out of jail card for being famous. It is a classic defense in rape trials to demonise the victim, what a low tactic and beyond the pale imho. Chinatown is one of my all time favorite films as it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 So we have the the usual excuses. She looked older. She was 'experienced' She consented, despite being drunk and under the influence of other drugs. Wow that's all right then. Was she by any chance 'provocatively dressed' as well? In that case she must have been absolutely gagging for it. She was a 13 year old CHILD I hope 7 foot 30 stone Redneck Billy 'Donkey Dong' from the swamps gets a new cell/bummate for many happy years - and nights. Squeal piggy squeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 He's already been convicted. She doesn't have to testify. Grand Jury or not, this is what she said happened to her. Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug, and "despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her", each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html As I understand it, he admitted one charge as part of a plea bargain which would have seen him placed on probation. The plea bargain was rejected by the judge, so his admission of guilt of that one charge no longer stands, and a new trial would be necessary. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I think I'd rather go with the legal expert in this article than accept the random misunderstandings of strangers on internet forums. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/...in5346108.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted October 5, 2009 Author Share Posted October 5, 2009 The suggestion that it was a 'one-off' is somewhat overruled by his conduct with Nastassja Kinski when she was a 15-year-old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I see Woody Allen signed the petition in support of Polanski..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosferatu Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I see Woody Allen signed the petition in support of Polanski..... Giles Coren in the Times summed that up quite nicely with him picturing the Judges sitting around reading the petition and commenting along the lines of "Hey if somebody who divorces their wife so he can marry their adopted daughter says Polanski is a good guy then he must be ok " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I think I'd rather go with the legal expert in this article than accept the random misunderstandings of strangers on internet forums. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/...in5346108.shtml When your Internet expert differs with my Internet expert, we can only wait and see what happens. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 BUT: What was a 13-year old girl doing 'being photographed' by him. Where were the parents/chaperone? Was the child a wannabe model, offering anything she had for a shot at 'fame', or one of these 'Pageant' kids made up to look 30? Outrageous. He raped and buggered a 13 year old girl after feeding her drink and drugs. How on earth can you ever possibly offer any comment in mitigation? That is completely a outrageous thing to say. He's a filthy paedo in anyone's book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 BUT: What was a 13-year old girl doing 'being photographed' by him. Where were the parents/chaperone? Was the child a wannabe model, offering anything she had for a shot at 'fame', or one of these 'Pageant' kids made up to look 30? Outrageous. He raped and buggered a 13 year old girl after feeding her drink and drugs. How on earth can you ever possibly offer any comment in mitigation? That is completely a outrageous thing to say. He's a filthy paedo in anyone's book. Yeah, except in countries where the legal age of consent is 13. Oh, so not everyones then. So it would appear that right and wrong are a geographical thing not just a straight forward right/wrong thing. And please before someone brakes a nail trying to speed type a response that I am paedo or a paedo sympathizer, I am just pointing out the Daily Wail mentallity that hboy is showing with his statement. "STRING 'EM UP". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 In the country that he committed the crime and was subsequently convicted, it's a pretty straight forward thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 In the country that he committed the crime and was subsequently convicted, it's a pretty straight forward thing. And you are correct in every way, but you have missed my point. In almost every Western nation there are certain conventions on crime and the law.. Murder is murder, rape is rape, theft is theft. But when it comes down the age of consent, that changes from country to country. So if Polanski had slept with the same girl in Spain (age of consent of 13 as someone had prevously stated) while most would still think him repugnent he would not be a criminal. So like I said its a geographical thing. Quick edit to add... The USA, where in one state anal sex is illegal but others not. Not exactly the shining example of legal consistancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.