UPDATED: Roman Polanski's a free man

Full story: Long Beach Press-Telegram

In this is Jan. 15, 2009 file photo, film director Roman Polanski looks on in Montrouge, France.

Comments (Page 2)

Showing posts 21 - 40 of63
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
John Murthafat

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jul 13, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

1

obama hussein originally hated roman b/c he's a Jew, but when barry hussein found out what a dirty hollywood scoundrel he is he then said he liked him
Toby

Portland, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jul 13, 2010
 
Since I originally read about the Polanski 1977 case decades ago I was confused then as to why a victim of a violent rape would request to the judge that her perpetrator not receive any prison time. If the state has the obligation of upholding the charges presented by the grand jury i.e in the least present it before a jury in a trial, just why would the district attorney, the judge and the supposed victim along with her attorney and Mother present a plea bargain that basically threw out five of the more serious charges against Polanski?

I also never quite understood why Samantha Geimer was allowed to return alone with Polanski for the second photo-shoot after the first photo -shoot was done topless. Why would her attorney Lawrence Silver arranged a plea-bargain that would eliminate the more serious charges if indeed Polanski was guilty of those charges and can't people clearly see that when that was done the ability to really impose any lengthy sentence was also eliminated over thirty years ago, let alone the doubt it created in the severity of the charges that were originally presented?

When judge Rittenband recommended a mock trial with a predetermined sentence that is when the case went straight to the trash can, Polanski even if sentenced to 5-7 years would have had ample evidence that his trial was a mockery of justice and could have immediately been released on appeal. Gunson the prosecutor even said himself at that point quote ,"I'm not surprised that [Polanski] left under those circumstances."

This case was decided thirty -three years ago by the actions of the district attorney, and the judge and the victim herself, you would think that people could have figured that out over three decades ago. I don't know if Polanski is guilty of the original charges, I wasn't there, but I do know that in the least he was guilty of statutory rape which he himself admitted to. However judge Rittenband turned the trial into a circus and the supposed victim and her Mother pleading for leniency for Polanski created such an atmosphere of doubt the case was basically nothing at that point but a dog and pony show.
OldGuysRule

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jul 13, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Swiss argue that Polanski served 42 days -- and that itís unclear whether that fulfilled his full sentence.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07...
Frees Beach

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jul 13, 2010
 
Well, I'm certainly open to questioning our media. They are wrong a lot. Considering your claims, though, I urge you to post some links to reliable sources -- ideally video footage of Polanski's admissions.
CharlesP wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confused by the news medias lies.
Polanski was to get a 90 day psych exam. On the first or second day of the exam, Movie studio execs went to the prison and offered to replace Polanski with a body double. Polanski refused, BECAUSE HE HAD ALREADY BRIBED THE PRISON OFFICIALS TO LET HIM OUT IN LESS THAN HALF THE 90 DAYS. Polanski BRAGGED that his intent was to MAKE IT APPEAR THAT ALL OF THE JUDGES RULINGS WERE TOO HARSH! Polanski ADMITTED HE WAS OUT TO DESTROY THE JUDGES REPUTATION, because the judge had REFUSED TO LEGALIZE ADULTS HAVING SEX WITH CHILDREN, in the USA!(This conversation WAS ALL TELEVISED ON LIVE NEWS BROADCAST.)
Polanski FALSELY claims that the 90 days was his total sentence. Problem: The day that Judge Rittenband ordered Polanski to get a psych exam, NBC and CBS news reported that "AFTER THE RESULTS OF THE PSYCH EXAM ARE FOUND, then the judge will give a FINAL SENTENCE"! THey all HEARD THE JUDGE SAY THIS, and THE JUDGE ARRANGED A LATER COURT DATE WITH BOTH SIDES, for the purpose of the final sentencing!(If the psych exam were the final sentence, then the judge would NOT have scheduled another court date! FINAL SENTENCING MEANS THE LAST OF THE COURTS BUSINESS!)
You are CORRECT about the LA Prosecutors not providing proof that the psych exam was NOT the final sentence. THe LA PROSECUTORS WILL BE WORKING FOR THE BIG TV/MOVIE INDUSTRY CORPORATIONS IN THE FUTURE!! They CLEARLY THREW THE CASE AWAY, in exchange for the promise of a big job, fame, or something (much in the way Hollywood covered up for Polanski arranging the Manson family to kill his wife, and Prosecutor Bugliosi was promised a book/movie deal for the cover-up!!
The Judge wanted a voluntary deportation from Polanski BECAUSE POLANSKI ADMITTED ON LIVE TV TO ARRANGING THE MURDERS COMMITTED BY THE MANSON FAMILY, then POLANSKI BRAGGED that HE WAS GOING TO KILL MORE CELEBRITIES IN THE FUTURE!!! The judge was trying to PROTECT HIS FRIENDS IN SHOW BUSINESS.
Frees Beach

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jul 13, 2010
 
ICU2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank You aclu member !!!!!!!!!
Did you read the article, all of it, for comprehension? Same thing with my post?

jeez
debby

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jul 13, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

john wrote:
This punk has got to face justice. He thinks he could come here with no shame and rape one of our American Daughters. Hell get it in the end. God will get him!
God probably doesn't have the same cognitive functions you do.
debby

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jul 13, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

2

i think this case should be between him and the now elderly lady. not between what you people want.
debby

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jul 13, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

2

you don't care about that lady. if you did why are you not after OJ??? and bryant??? what is your real agenda?
Will

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jul 14, 2010
 
OldGuysRule wrote:
<quoted text>
We all know that Jackson was found not guilty, but just like OJ Simpson many, if not most, americans believe he was guilty.
Also, Jackson's alleged molestations were within the context of a child's amusement theme park and were repeated with more than one. Suggesting actions of intent, premeditation, coercion, manipulation, kidnapping and imprisoning.
A far greater criminal situation.
In your opinion, again. Jackson was an odd bird, but at no time was he guilty of the kind of outrageous assault that Polanski ADMITTED to.
Will

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Jul 14, 2010
 
John Murthafat wrote:
obama hussein originally hated roman b/c he's a Jew, but when barry hussein found out what a dirty hollywood scoundrel he is he then said he liked him
Aw, c'mon John, that's just the tequila talking....:)
Will

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Jul 14, 2010
 
OldGuysRule wrote:
The Swiss argue that Polanski served 42 days -- and that itís unclear whether that fulfilled his full sentence.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07...
A good point by one of the posters to that article - that a convicted criminal has no right to appeal his case while on the lam from justice.

If he wanted a resolution, he would have come back to the States and gotten one years ago. It's possible that the kind of lawyers he could buy would have saved him any further jail time and even raised questions about the original trial. But he was too important to be bothered to deal with the American justice system.

Unfortunately, the Swiss couldn't be bothered to send him back and FORCE him to deal with it. Their idea of "privacy" seem designed to protect the guilty rather than the innocent - like the girl he raped.
michael

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Jul 14, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Toby wrote:
Since I originally read about the Polanski 1977 case decades ago I was confused then as to why a victim of a violent rape would request to the judge that her perpetrator not receive any prison time. If the state has the obligation of upholding the charges presented by the grand jury i.e in the least present it before a jury in a trial, just why would the district attorney, the judge and the supposed victim along with her attorney and Mother present a plea bargain that basically threw out five of the more serious charges against Polanski?
I also never quite understood why Samantha Geimer was allowed to return alone with Polanski for the second photo-shoot after the first photo -shoot was done topless. Why would her attorney Lawrence Silver arranged a plea-bargain that would eliminate the more serious charges if indeed Polanski was guilty of those charges and can't people clearly see that when that was done the ability to really impose any lengthy sentence was also eliminated over thirty years ago, let alone the doubt it created in the severity of the charges that were originally presented?
When judge Rittenband recommended a mock trial with a predetermined sentence that is when the case went straight to the trash can, Polanski even if sentenced to 5-7 years would have had ample evidence that his trial was a mockery of justice and could have immediately been released on appeal. Gunson the prosecutor even said himself at that point quote ,"I'm not surprised that [Polanski] left under those circumstances."
This case was decided thirty -three years ago by the actions of the district attorney, and the judge and the victim herself, you would think that people could have figured that out over three decades ago. I don't know if Polanski is guilty of the original charges, I wasn't there, but I do know that in the least he was guilty of statutory rape which he himself admitted to. However judge Rittenband turned the trial into a circus and the supposed victim and her Mother pleading for leniency for Polanski created such an atmosphere of doubt the case was basically nothing at that point but a dog and pony show.
this was not a voilent rape,it was sex with a minor,which happens alot in todays times,with 14000 rape kits left untouched by the LAPD,this is a disgrace that cooley wasted all this time on a 33 year old case that he could never win,go after the fresh cases the real rapes,not this hollywood BS.
CharlesP

East Dublin, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Jul 14, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
How have the orderlies been treating you? They still buy you snicker bars and cigarettes when you ask them to, don't they?
You are still locked up, and chained to a padded wall, aren't you?
DEAR IDIOT:
President Ronald Reagan said on several occassions that I was the person who won the Cold War for the USA!
I stopped 8 different Soviet invasions around the world, between 1970-1991. TOO BAD YOU NEVER LEARNED REAL HISTORY!
I also stopped 3 other wars, provided intel for the first Gulf WAr (the accurate intel, NOT the FAULTY INTEL THEY ORIGINALLY HAD).
If you spent your time LEARNING, rather than being a SMART MOUTHED MORON, maybe you could amount to something in your life!
CharlesP

East Dublin, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Jul 14, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Toby wrote:
Since I originally read about the Polanski 1977 case decades ago I was confused ..... can, Polanski even if sentenced to 5-7 years would have had ample evidence that his trial was a mockery of justice and could have immediately been released on appeal. Gunson the prosecutor even said himself at that point quote ,"I'm not surprised that [Polanski] left under those circumstances."
This case was decided thirty -three years ago by the actions of the district attorney, and the judge and the victim herself, you would think that people could have figured that out over three decades ago. I don't know if Polanski is guilty of the original charges, I wasn't there, but I do know that in the least he was guilty of statutory rape which he himself admitted to. However judge Rittenband turned the trial into a circus and the supposed victim and her Mother pleading for leniency for Polanski created such an atmosphere of doubt the case was basically nothing at that point but a dog and pony show.
You are listening to the lies, and NOT the truth.
The ONLY reason that Geimer pressed charges was to get the law enforcement/criminal court spend THEIR money to prove the rape, THEN GEIMER could FILE A CIVIL SUIT and WIN LOTS OF MONEY AND MOVE TO HAWAII, where her mothers new boyfriend was going to be living.
ONE CHARGE WAS ALL THEY NEEDED IN CIVIL COURT! so they made it EASY ON THE COURT TO GET A CONVICTION/CONFESSION/plea agreement.
When they say that Judge Rittenband wanted a mock trial, they are EXAGGERATING the event.
MANY Judges will say to the lawyers, "I have been told that YOur side wants this, and has agreed to it. I have been told that YOU (the other side) have agreed to this. SO let's go out there and you say this and they agree and we get this over with, and avoid alot of publicity!(the Judge was TOLD BY LAWYERS, THE HEADS OF THE MOVIE STUDIOS, and OTHER HOLLYWOOD/LOS ANGELES POLITICIANS) that THIS IS HOW THEY WANTED IT HANDLED!!) This is called "A PLEA AGREEMENT"! NOT A "MOCK TRIAL"!
Polanski PRETENDED TO GO ALONG, with the intention OF FRAMING THE JUDGE FOR MISCONDUCT!
Polanski had DELUSIONS that HE WAS GOING TO LEGALIZE SEX BETWEEN KIDS AND ADULTS, in the USA! I PERSONALLY HEARD HIM BRAG OF THIS! This was " going to make me the biggest man in Hollywood" POLANSKI SAID!!
The Judge DID NOT make the trial into a circus. Polanski kept LIEING, TO MAKE IT NECESSARY FOR THE JUDGE TO STRIKE MANY OF POLANSKI'S RANTINGS FROM THE RECORD! Then Polanski BLAMED THE JUDGE!
Polanski thought he could get away with this because LOS ANGELES ALLOWED POLANSKI TO HAVE CHARLES MANSON KILL HIS WIFE, and the Others. Polanski has BRAGGED OF THIS MANY TIMES!
Polanski Claims that the judge was a publicity hound. WHERE ARE ALL OF THESE NEWS BROADCASTS? If you go to a TV archives and search under Judge Rittenband, you only get one or two items!
The Documentary SHOWED NONE OF THE SUPPOSED ACTS OF A JUDGE IN FRONT OF THE NEWS CAMERAS. Why not show DOZENS AND DOZENS OF NEWS STORIES WITH THE JUDGE BEING A "Publicity hound"?
WHY NOT? IT was NOT LIKE THAT!
The movie studio WENT TO RITTENBAND and ASKED HIM TO BE EXTRA PUBLIC, so that NO ONE COULD CLAIM THAT CELEBRITIES GOT SPECIAL TREATMENT. The judge saw NO HARM IN THAT, as Rittenband said, "I PLAN ON HAVING A FAIR TRIAL"! Polanski had TOLD the studios this was OK, then DELIBERATELY TURNED AROUND AND FALSELY BLAMED THE JUDGE ON THIS!!
The Documentary claims that the current Judge was unfair for NOT ALLOWING GEIMER to have her say in the matter. WHAT they did NOT say was that GEIMER ALREADY HAD HER CHANCE TO ASK FOR LENIENCY, and HONEST JUDGE RITTENBAND GAVE THAT TO POLANSKI. This makes us ask: HOW was Rittenband HARSH to Polanski, when he allowed most of the charges BE DROPPED??? This is NOT HARSH, it is OVERLY LENIENT!
GEIMER DOES NOT DESERVE TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO INFLUENCE THE SAME CASE!
Polanski is a MANIPULATIVE, SOCIO-PATHE! HE PLANNED ALL OF THIS decades ago!
Lucy

Vila Velha, Brazil

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Jul 14, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

AT LAST!!!
EJM

Duluth, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Jul 14, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The former Samantha Gailey, now Mrs Geimer, with three children of her own, insists she has no "hard feelings" towards RP. She accepted 140,000 Euros (or more) and is satisfied that this case should be over.

So, if Samantha is satisfied, why spend millions to extradite RP? With a good attorney, he would maybe spend a few months in jail. He's not worth the money.
Croak

Walnut Creek, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Jul 14, 2010
 
He's a perv but Repulsion with Deneuve is an absolutely ace movie.
Aussie

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Jul 14, 2010
 
They will grab this guy.
EJM

Duluth, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Jul 15, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No one will "grab" RP. RP lives in France, and France refuses to extradite French citizens.
Aussie

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Jul 15, 2010
 
EJM wrote:
No one will "grab" RP. RP lives in France, and France refuses to extradite French citizens.
It would be a bugger if Bin-Laden was French.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 21 - 40 of63
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Berne, Switzerland Discussions

Search the Berne, Switzerland Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Can couples really get stuck together during sex? Feb '14 Inquisitive in Zurich 2
7 Fairytale Alpine Towns that You have to See t... (Nov '13) Nov '13 SHYKORA PAUL arts 1
What climate change? (Jun '13) Oct '13 DonPanic 75
Statue of Liberty reopens amid federal shutdown (Oct '13) Oct '13 TedsLiver 1
"A Hollande presidency couldn't be any worse" (Apr '12) Jan '13 dunadd 80
Swiss economy unexpectedly grows in first quarter (Jun '12) Jun '12 neobyzantine 2
Swiss hold ex-SNC-Lavalin exec over fraud charges (May '12) May '12 Walter 2
•••
•••