Throughout my seven months since September 26, 2009, the date of my arrest at Zurich Airport, where I had landed with a view to receiving a lifetime award for my work from the representative of the Swiss Minister of Culture, I have refrained from making any public statements and have requested my lawyers to confine their comments to a bare minimum. I wanted the legal authorities of Switzerland and the United States, as well as my lawyers, to do their work without any polemics on my part.

I have decided to break my silence in order to address myself directly to you without any intermediaries and in my own words.

I have had my share of dramas and joys, as we all have, and I am not going to try to ask you to pity my lot in life.  I ask only to be treated fairly like anyone else.

It is true:  33 years ago I pleaded guilty, and I served time at the prison for common law crimes at Chino, not in a VIP prison.  That period was to have covered the totality of my sentence.  By the time I left prison, the judge had changed his mind and claimed that the time served at Chino did not fulfil the entire sentence, and it is this reversal that justified my leaving the United States.

This affair was roused from its slumbers of over three decades by a documentary film-maker who gathered evidence from persons involved at the time.  I took no part in that project, either directly or indirectly.  The resulting documentary not only highlighted the fact that I left the United States because I had been treated unjustly; it also drew the ire of the Los Angeles authorities, who felt that they had been attacked and decided to request my extradition from Switzerland, a country I have been visiting regularly for over 30 years without let or hindrance.

I can now remain silent no longer!

I can remain silent no longer because the American authorities have just decided, in defiance of all the arguments and depositions submitted by third parties, not to agree to sentence me in absentia even though the same Court of Appeal recommended the contrary.

I can remain silent no longer because the California court has dismissed the victim’s numerous requests that proceedings against me be dropped, once and for all, to spare her from further harassment every time this affair is raised once more.

I can remain silent no longer because there has just been a new development of immense significance.  On February 26 last, Roger Gunson, the deputy district attorney in charge of the case in 1977, now retired, testified under oath before Judge Mary Lou Villar in the presence of David Walgren, the present deputy district attorney in charge of the case, who was at liberty to contradict and question him, that on September 16, 1977, Judge Rittenband stated to all the parties concerned that my term of imprisonment in Chino constituted the totality of the sentence I would have to serve.

I can remain silent no longer because the request for my extradition addressed to the Swiss authorities is founded on a lie.  In the same statement, retired deputy district attorney Roger Gunson added that it was false to claim, as the present district attorney’s office does in their request for my extradition, that the time I spent in Chino was for the purpose of a diagnostic study.

The said request asserts that I fled in order to escape sentencing by the U.S. judicial authorities, but under the plea-bargaining process I had acknowledged the facts and returned to the United States in order to serve my sentence.  All that remained was for the court to confirm this agreement, but the judge decided to repudiate it in order to gain himself some publicity at my expense.

I can remain silent no longer because for over 30 years my lawyers have never ceased to insist that I was betrayed by the judge, that the judge perjured himself, and that I served my sentence.  Today it is the deputy district attorney who handled the case in the 1970s, a man of irreproachable reputation, who has confirmed all my statements under oath, and this has shed a whole new light on the matter.

I can remain silent no longer because the same causes are now producing the same effects.  The new District Attorney, who is handling this case and has requested my extradition, is himself campaigning for election and needs media publicity!

I can no longer remain silent because the United States continues to demand my extradition more to serve me on a platter to the media of the world than to pronounce a judgment concerning which an agreement was reached 33 years ago.

I can remain silent no longer because I have been placed under house arrest in Gstaad and bailed in very large sum of money which I have managed to raise only by mortgaging the apartment that has been my home for over 30 years, and because I am far from my family and unable to work.

Such are the facts I wished to put before you in the hope that Switzerland will recognize that there are no grounds for extradition, and that I shall be able to find peace, be reunited with my family, and live in freedom in my native land.

Roman Polanski

(Tr. Janet Lizop)

230 Commentaires

  1. Roman, I hope you are doing well, do not listen to these judgmental freaks, there are many who support you and believe in your innocence 100%.

    The media wants a scapegoat. That is all.
    It’s all propaganda for their own benefit. The girl herself has spoken out against the vile, scumsucking media and the people that gorge themselves on the sensationalist reporting.
    It makes me sick to see these comments of so many people out for blood of someone who served his time and was deceived at the last second.

    Remain strong brother, don’t let those fat cronies from the United States get you down.

  2. Mr Polanski has a right not to remain silent for that matter. My name is Tim Fiverr. Great Post. I would ask myself what would I do? in this situation –

  3. Roman Polanski detention in Switzerland was a American
    communists attack against free Poland. Since 1986-1991
    I was forced with pressure of torture in Peoples Polish
    Army to study to avoid military service. In 2007
    USA enforced this service on me in concentration
    deportation camp in Florence Arizona
    after getting PhD from US university for Polish passport.
    They closed Polanski as illegal immigrant in remote
    control ring on allegations
    for what millions of Polish students in schools were doing at
    Samantha Geimer age at alleged incident in communist
    Poland to show free Republic of Poland is nothing.

  4. This whole situation is absurd! Mr Polanski is INNOCENT!, if these ignorant prosecutors would just open the Talmud they would see that there is no offense. GOD!, not man gave his chosen people laws to live by, if these fool prosecuters would only just read they would be shamed by their 33 year harassment of this wonderful gentleman.

  5. I for one have lost a lot of respect for the French powers-that-be. Frederic Mitterand has admitted using young Thai boys for prostitution. French coffers are still full of money looted and extorted from former colonies (including Haiti, which has been double-frigged since the horrific earthquake this year). Rwanda is scrapping French as an official language in favour of English, in part due to the French government’s attitude towards the 1990’s genocide there.

    France may celebrate Bastille Day and say « Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite », but it is now a country dominated by a moneyed elite instead of an official monarchy, and there are separate justice systems: one for the poor and obscure, and another for the rich and famous.

    Hitler was a talented artist, writer and orator; should he be exonerated for his crimes because of that? Germany just arrested another ex-Nazi for his alleged involvement in the deaths of over 450,000 Jews; should he be set free just because he’s 90 years old, and may be talented in certain ways?

    A quote from a Netizen: « Most Polanksi supporters think that it’s all right to drug, rape and sodomize a 13-year-old girl. I don’t. They also believe that adults who coerce children and young teenagers into sexual acts shouldn’t face any punishment. I think they should. Additionally, they don’t see anything wrong with a fugitive evading justice for 33 years. I think it’s pretty serious. »

    In fairness though, 65% of the French public think that Polanski should be extradited to the U.S., with perhaps 10 percent undecided, and 25% opposed.

    Bravo to the U.S. Justice Department for vowing to continue its struggle to have Monsieur Polanski brought to justice for his crimes.

  6. Under American law, sexual intercourse with a person under the age of consent usually results in doing a stretch of time on the inside. 42 days falls well short of what can be expected in such cases. Dura lex, sed lex.

    What is called « plea bargaining » is a peculiarity of American criminal law. In other jurisdictions, the same result is obtained either through circumlocutions, or is outright impossible.

    The negotiations leading up to a plea bargain are not legally binding on the judge. It is not at all unheard of for a defendant to plead guilty to a lesser charge, believing on the advice of his counsel that doing so will result in minimal or no jail time, only to discover at the time of sentencing that, while the judge accepted his plea and had the option under the sentencing guidelines in force not to require a jail term, the judge also had the option, under those same guideline, of imposing a nontrivial jail term. Such outcomes cannot be challenged on appeal. A light sentence is a gratuitous act of generosity on the judge’s part, not an expectation governed by some sort of contract.

    There was a long tradition of Hollywood directors and others using their power as gatekeepers to obtain sexual favours from wannabe actresses. Polanski got caught up in this culture. His case may have helped bring about the healthier atmosphere that reigns in Hollywood today.

    Don’t fret over Polanski. He is a French citizen, admired as an artist by the French Powers that Be, and as such will be carefully protected by the French state for the balance of his natural life.

    • Well said!!!! I completely agree. Polanski is just another sicko who portrays the image of a cool peaceful existence.

  7. Il a commis le crime, alors il peut payer les pots casses. Je vais boycotter tous les films de M. Perverski des ce moment.

  8. Actually Sphinx, the Swiss have decided to reject the request from the states. So I can safely assume that he is probably home right now, sipping on wine and laughing in the face of people like you who seem to ignore civil rights and the justice system just because a man made a mistake years ago. He will not be in jail anytime soon, because he did his time. She wants to forget this all, as does he. He is a person just like you or me and deserves to be treated equal.

    • In what way is this being treated as equal? He is guilty of unlawful sex with a minor. If I committed this crime and plead guilty to it, and then fled to avoid the full prison term, the Swiss would have booted me to the US to face the courts, and would have been right to do so. Polanski has understandably used his wealth and power to avoid jail, but that is not equality under the law. To claim that 42 days is sufficient prison time for a sexual attack on a young girl is frankly nonsense.

  9. Polanki’s situation is more than about Polanski, Samantha, or the judge who apparently seriously breached protocol. It can call to mind some fundamental issues concerning age of consent laws and the definition of « rape ». Today, we know that children are reaching puberty, and thus physical maturity, far earlier than even 100 years ago. Yet the legal age of consent has, if anything, been raised in many countries and penalties hugely increased for sexual activity with someone below this age. This is in spite of the fact that studies have shown, unsurprisingly, a not insignificant proportion of early teens to be engaging in full sex with each other. We continue to delude ourselves that they don’t do this in spite of the evidence and we perpetuate the myth of adolescent « innocence ». Naive and learning, yes. Physically mature, yes. Amoral, maybe. Innocent? No, that word doesn’t really have a solid definition.

    In the UK, a child can be fully criminally culpable for serious crimes (such as murder) at something like 10 years of age. In other words, the law regards them as being fully capable of knowing exactly what they are doing, of premeditating and carrying out a grievous crime. Yet the same legal system will say that a teen of 13 is incapable of deciding to have sex with anyone of any age. Capable of deciding to murder and be fully responsible for that murder yet fully incapable of deciding to engage in even the most insignificant sexual act. This is without any issues of force or coercion – the child still cannot consent under the law, indeed there is no such thing as « consent » in their case. But can decide to murder. And many countries have different ideas about what these magical ages are where one suddenly can become responsible for either (say) murder or sex. Doesn’t anyone see a strange contradiction here? I find it disturbing, though I can’t say I know what the answer is. But it does need rational, unemotional thought. Which it is not getting from anyone it seems.

    • This is why I feel it should be about age difference not set in stone as this old and no younger. For example, a 17 year old male who has sex with a 15 year old girl is currently the same crime as a 40 year old who has sex with a 10 year old. They are far from the same thing morally, but legally will get you a criminal record just the same. it should be open to interpretation, because, unlike many other crimes, its not as simple as right and wrong.

  10. Roman, your self-absorbed excuse-making sophistical « breaking of silence », after so long to consider but completely disregarding your rape of a child , removes all doubt that you must be rebuked and punished severely. Don’t worry about mortgaging your apartment of 30 years. There is good reason to hope that California will provide you a place to live for the rest of your life.

  11. There is NOTHING but filth there and Steve Cooley has done NOTHING to stop the evil the County of Los Angeles does. Need a few examples? Here they are:

    Steve Cooley has done nothing to prevent Los Angeles County from taking political prisoners (yes, that’s right – LA County LITERALLY takes political prisoners).

    The most egregious example is that of American Hero, Richard I. Fine, an attorney who has devoted his life to exposing the blatant CORRUPTION that is systemic throughout all of Los Angeles County. Richard Fine has saved the people of California more than ONE BILLION DOLLARS, helped recover more than $14 MILLION in child support from the corrupt Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department which was stealing that money from innocent people and then NOT giving that money to the children it was intended for. Richard Fine, however, is simply too good at exposing the cesspool of human filth that fills every Los Angeles County Agency – including the corrupt Los Angeles County Superior Court. It is a fact that Richard I. Fine discovered that Los Angeles County has been literally bribing all Los Angeles County Superior Court Judges for YEARS by making illegal payments of $57,000 per year (the amount was recently RAISED by the county). While LA County Superior Court Judges are state officials and are (surprise, surprise), paid by the State, the County has bribed them for so many years that it is impossible for anyone to sue the County (even the sleazy Child Support Services Department has the “penthouse suite” on the top of the Los Angeles County Superior Building on Commonwealth Ave. That’s right – the County and the Court SHARE the same office! Anyway, Richard I. Fine has literally been locked away to rot when Neo-Nazis Los Angeles Superior Court Judge, David P. Yaffe didn’t like the fact that Fine pointed out the BRIBES that Yaffe has accepted for years. Megalomaniac Yaffe locked Fine up more than a year ago – no charges of any kind have ever been filed and Fine has been denied all due process.
    As long as we’re on the topic of child support – where was Steve Cooley in the Taron James case? The County LITERALLY stole tens of thousands of dollars and terrorized Taron James for YEARS for child support even though they knew, through DNA testing, that Taron James was not the father. Furthermore, the County launched their attack on James with he was fighting for freedom during the Gulf War! The corrupt courts finally were forced to admit that James NEVER fathered the child but still REFUSED to give James the thousands that LA County stole from him (I believe that figure was more than $40,000 over the years).
    Where was Steve Cooley when Los Angeles County was doing the same thing to Manual Navarro who, like James, was did not father a child (again, as proven by DNA testing)? The LA County Bastards went after him with a vengeance too. When the Navarro case made it to an appellate court (with one of the few honest judges out there) and ruled against LA County (remember, the corrupt LA County Superior Court Judges NEVER are bribe by the County – which Steve Cooley has refused to stop). Then LA County Whore and Chief Child Support Department Shyster Lori A. Cruz tried to get the court to HIDE the ruling against the County.
    Steve Cooley is also very good at destroying the lives of good people who the County makes FALSE AND MALICIOUS charges of child abuse and then routinely violates their Constitutional Rights too. The case of Humphries vs. County of Los Angeles is a PRIME EXAMPLE of the evil pile of human excrement that runs the County. If you want to read a real horror story, take a look at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against Los Angeles County – it’s absolutely UNREAL. Now, LA County has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court because they don’t want to have to pay damages to the Humphries and untold thousands of other good people they have destroyed.
    I could go on forever about bastards from Los Angeles County, like Steve Cooley, who destroy lives and abuse children. I won’t go into it here but I am personally aware of a child who has now suffered brain damage because of Los Angeles County’s evil actions.

  12. Jolie – Samantha Galley was willing to remove clothing to advance her career, and purposely hid her topless modeling activities with Roman Polanski at the first photo shoot from her mother knowing that her mother would have immediately terminated Samantha’s modeling “opportunity” with Roman Polanski if she had known what was going on.

    Samantha’s mother Susan Galley was lax in leaving her underage daughter unattended with Roman Polanski for a photo shoot, and the mother’s negligence in regards to her daughter was compounded by her daughter Samantha’s deceit, who by purposely concealing her topless modeling activities with Polanski from her mother, for the sole purpose of advancing Samantha’s modeling career, blocked her Adult mother Susan Galley from intervening sooner to stop Samantha’s sexual collision with Roman Polanski before it occurred.

    This seems to have been a trap for Roman Polanski, with both mother and daughter contributing to the sexual collision, with everyone involved being tempted by different rewards.

    A troubling question is this, was only Roman Polanski’s action illegal in California in 1977? Since everyone involved contributed to this problem, I am not sure why was this case not tossed out a long time ago.

    Every young girl and mother should be aware that if girl tempts a man by being topless, and deliberately hides this from her mother, and the young girl goes back for more there may be trouble, much more than she bargained for. After all men are only human.

    Samatha said “On Feb. 20, 1977, Polanski took me on our first photo shoot in a hillside area just a few blocks from my house. We shot a roll of film; then he asked me to take off my shirt and took topless photos while I changed. I let him do it, but I felt self-conscious. I was thinking, “I shouldn’t be doing this,” but I was a kid, so I thought if it wasn’t okay, he wouldn’t tell me to do it. If I’d told my mom, she would never have let me go with him the second time. When he made another appointment a few weeks later, she had no reason to suspect anything. I didn’t want to go, but I still thought it would be a good opportunity.”

    Ormelle – Actually her mother had seen the photos they had shot behind their own house, & she & her mother’s boyfriend were perfectly happy with them. He showed them to them after they had done the shoot at Nicholson’s house & he had returned her. Geimer had seen them before they went there in his car, and ‘only’ after he had left, his friend who had asked him to photograph her in the first place had phoned him to say that they ‘suddenly’ did NOT ‘like’ them. But, when the friend who was her sister’s boyfriend had a look at them, he said they were beautiful & had no clue why they would say that. Now, therefore what Geimer claimed that she felt ‘uncomfortable’ but did it anyway, sounds a bit iffy, & she in fact maintained later in order to keep up the lie that they didn’t like them, to ‘make’ HER the ‘innocent’ party in this, while in fact she had no qualms to pose for any of the topless photos basically twice.

    Of course, to say it was an ‘opportunity’ is correct, but they later put it as if she was somehow ‘compelled’ into it & just ‘did it’, while she in fact said even in that documentary that she’d love to be photographed by Polanski as soon as she heard of it to further her career. Which also nullifies her previous claims that he had ‘fooled’ them into posing for him, under a sort of ‘pretense’ to get to know her, since the boyfriend had asked Polanski as soon as HE had heard he did the Vogue assignment with these young girls form all over the world, not Polanski them. Polanski knew her mother since a year already & up to the day he went to see them first at their home, he had never seen Geimer, as so to be in any form ‘interested’, while Geimer claimed later ‘he must have seen a photo’ of her to be ‘interested’, clearly a lie. He also said he wasn’t too impressed with her [as a model], & they did three shoots in all, so he wasn’t even ‘interested’ in her sexually in any form up to the point when they both ended up in Nicholson’s TV room on her own free will.

    What you quoted can be seen as leading him on from her side, trying to ‘dupe’ her mother, which sounds logical for a teen trying to hide things from a mother, but since she was to expect that they all would see them at one point, since the mother needed to sign them off for possible release to Vogue, there’s no way that is correct. Or to say, “I didn’t want to go,” to the second Bisset/Nicholson shoot. She tried to cover up for her mother having allowed the topless photos, not only for herself, since they suddenly said they didn’t like them AFTER Polanski had left.

    My guess is, since Geimer told her boyfriend of the sex, not ‘rape’, he didn’t believe either way, then her sister, then her mother, & then they constructed a web of lies to make the mother, A, more ‘responsible’ over her negligence that she had left her with him unattended & to shoot these photos, B, to turn the sex into ‘unlawful sex’ for her age, C, Geimer probably told them some more ‘elaborate version’ of the events the mother first believed, and then, when the case went to court after she foolishly had called the cops the girl in fact never wanted for obvious reasons, she noticed that she had lied about the ‘rape’ & sodomy at no evidence supporting that, & tried to wriggle herself out of it by giving us this that Geimer suddenly was ‘afraid’ of him nonsense & her sudden ‘reluctance’ etc., to make herself the more ‘concerned’ & Geimer the more ‘innocent’ parties in all this mire they had created.

    So ‘trap’ is sort of correct, since all they needed to say was what really happened, the girl had unlawfully engaged in casual sex with him, wasn’t really drunk or drugged not to know what she was doing at no such proof, he confesses to the casual sex, & the case had been signed off right there as unlawful sex with a minor, he gets a fine and/or probation & can walk like everyone else had then. But, they kept on lying to make themselves out these ‘innocents’ & put all the blame on Polanski, & the corrupt cops & lawmakers made it even more complicated LA style.

    So yes, why was only Polanski’s action ‘punished’, while everyone else involved contributed to this problem on several levels, compounding it with lies to get out of it again & got away with it all? Their own drugs & alcohol furnishing to Geimer, the underage sex she engaged in with her boyfriend & others they had condoned?

    Because Rittenband played his own games once he had Polanski in his clutches, & applied double standards on a grand scale. He should have tossed out the case the moment Geimer was found frolicking around with her mother’s boyfriend long before Polanski even pleaded, but didn’t out of spite. He should have signed off the case within weeks as short probation as soon as they had no case of rape/sodomy & all these inconsistencies/lies, not construct ‘mock arguments’ for the press after Rittenband had reports that Polanski was no MDSO already, let him travel back & forth to Europe for ten months only to call him back fro ‘another report’ no one asked for, but forget the plea deal the mother had pressed for to end the sham they had initiated & close the damned case.

    No, Rittenband wanted to play him for his own better press image, sent him to Chino no one wanted after he saw that Oktoberfest photo slimy Wells came up with, then had said that was his entire ‘punishment’ (no one wanted either) & to release him, but tell the press instead he’d send him back for a second time (which in also unlawful to give two ‘sentences’ under the guise of this ‘study’) after he caught too much heat from every direction, since no one got the idea that was no rape/sodomy just underage sex, & then wanted to ‘unofficially’ release him the press wouldn’t know of, rather than do what the book says & not cater for the public sector.

    BUT, he did so on the threat of self-deportation, which was also unlawful, & Polanski thought, sod you, since I can’t work in the US anymore, what’s the point of staying if I have to go back to Chino still no one wanted, only to be deported, also no one wanted him to face. But Rittenband did it anyway & Polanski took a hike.

    No wonder Rittenband was removed by both attorneys, but of course, FAR TOO LATE, & that’s why we have this case still sitting in the courts for punks like Cooley to play with it, or rather Polanski, some more. He knows exactly Polanski had done his time long ago NO one in fact had asked for, & now has been detained for over eight months for basically nothing on top, all for Cooley to gain election as AG.

    Jolie – Thanks for your detailed post. I am trying to find out if some of these facts can be, or are actually proven.

    Ormelle said “Actually her [Samantha Geimer’s] mother [Susan Galley] had seen the photos they [Samantha & Polanski] had shot behind their own house, & she [Susan Galley?] & her mother’s boyfriend were perfectly happy with them. He [Polanski] showed them to them [Susan Galley, her boyfriend] after they had done the shoot at Nicholson’s house & he had returned her. Geimer had seen them before they went there in his car, and ‘only’ after he had left, his friend who had asked him to photograph her in the first place had phoned him to say that they ‘suddenly’ did NOT ‘like’ them. But, when the friend who was her sister’s boyfriend had a look at them, he said they were beautiful & had no clue why they would say that. Now, therefore what Geimer claimed that she felt ‘uncomfortable’ but did it anyway, sounds a bit iffy, & she in fact maintained later in order to keep up the lie that they didn’t like them, to ‘make’ HER the ‘innocent’ party in this, while in fact she had no qualms to pose for any of the topless photos basically twice.”

    1. Did Samantha’s mother know that Polanski was photographing her daughter semi-nude – topless in the backyard of their home, which occurred at the beginning of their photo sessions, and if so what source(s)?

    If the photography was for French Vogue Magazine it would seem that the mother would have known in advance of the semi-nude photography but this is not absolute for the mother’s knowledge of the semi-nude shoots, unless there is a source to back this up, such as the semi-nude photos and the fact that the mother was shown these semi – nude photos prior to Polanski leaving the mother, Susan Galley’s house, but after her daughter had already had unlawful sex with Roman Polanski.
    It would make sense that if Samantha’s mother Susan Galley had initially agreed to the semi-nude shoot of her underage daughter Samantha that she would continue to approve the semi-nude photos of her underage daughter, prior to discovering her underage daughter’s sexual encounter with Polanski.

    However upon discovery of her underage daughter’s sexual encounter with Polanski, then Susan Galley would understand for the first time that her negligence had contributed to her daughter’s unlawful sex with Roman Polanski who had also assisted by operating on auto-pilot and by not thinking about the girl’s age and that he was in California. A Stranger in A Strange land. I am reminded of Homer’s Odyssey.

    But of course Roman Polanski as well as others who are treated similarly, could not possibly have foreseen the family’s dishonesty in covering up in order to blame him entirely, or the Californian bait and switch and legal trap that was being set for him.

    2. You said Samantha saw photos of herself topless (from an earlier photo shoot with Polanski) before Samantha went on the second (or third?) photo shoot to Jack Nicholson’s house. If these topless photos were shot behind Samantha’s own house, with her mother’s Susan Galleys consent? What’s the source for this earlier topless shoot and mother’s consent – information?

    3. You said “Judge Rittenband should have tossed out the case the moment Geimer was found frolicking around with her mother’s boyfriend long before Polanski even pleaded, but didn’t out of spite.”

    Question – What is the source(s)? How bad was the frolicking and is it true that Judge Rittenband actually knew of Samantha’s the underage girl, frolicking with mother’s boyfriend?

    To conclude in essence what you are saying is that the 13 year old Samantha Galley lied to the Grand Jury, lied to People magazine when she was in her 40’s, and lied in the documentary Polanski: Wanted and Desired, to cover up for her mother, Susan Galley who had approved the topless shoot from the get go, & which semi -nude photography started in Samantha’s mother’s own back yard?

    If this is true then Samantha did not contribute to her own downfall by lying through omission to her mother in not telling her mother that she had been photographed topless in February 1977.

    Instead it was her mother Susan Galley that contributed entirely to Samantha’s downfall, Samantha’s unlawful sex with Roman Polanski.

    In addition and after the fact Samantha aided and abetted to cover up her mother’s gross negligence towards her by lying to the Press and in the documentary Polanski Wanted and Desired, to cover up her mother’s culpability that her mother knew and agreed to her daughter’s semi-nude and topless shoots with Polanski yet failed to chaperone her daughter at these semi-nude photographic shoots, which lack of supervision of her underage and sexy daughter Samantha Galley courted & invited disaster.

    In the worse case scenario which I state, but which as a caveat is not necessarily true, it is possible that the mother Susan Galley intentionally hoped for a sexual liaison between her daughter and Polanski and used her own daughter as bait – for a payout. If that is the case then Polanski was set up, but even if this is not the case, Polanski was still set up first through the mother’s gross negligence towards her underage daughter, and then by her daughter Samantha covering up her mother’s gross negligence towards her.

    This reminds me of an earlier bait and switch incident that Polanski had faced in Poland as a young man after the Second World war where Polanski nearly lost his life to a serial murderer who lured Polanski under the ground to steal his bicycle and who nearly killed Polanski in the process by beating his head until he was unconscious and leaving him for dead.

    It seems that Samantha and her mother Susan Galley, the California Judge Laurence J. Rittenband, Los Angeles prosecutor David Wells, 9th Circuit Judge Trott, Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and his office 32 years later have wanted to steal Polanski’s fame, good name and his money, and his freedom all for a casual sexual encounter for which he was NOT entirely responsible.

    So ‘trap’ is correct, because mother and the daughter have been dishonest in covering up Susan Galley’s agreement to allow her sexually active underage daughter’s topless modeling activities with a man 30 years her senior, without adult supervision, which quite logically in Hollywood in the 1970’s progressed into casual sex.

    If the family had been honest about their contribution to the sexual collision, and Santa Monica Judge Rittenband did seem to know as much, then the payout would not have been as big for them, nor would they have had as much sympathy from the world’s press and other people, and Samantha may not have got to star in the documentary Polanski: Wanted And Desired, for which she received a little fame and fortune.

  13. Jim_ Samantha was willing to be topless with Polanski to advance her career, which she hid from her mother, deliberately to continue her work relationship with Polanski.

    Susan Galley’s negligence in not chaperoning her underage daughter while working for Roman Polanski, was thus compounded by her daughter Samantha’s cover up of her topless activities with Polanski.

    Samantha’s concealment served to block her mother from intervening to stop Samantha’s sexual collision with Polanski before it occurred.

    A trap was set for Polanski, with both mother and daughter contributing to the sexual collision, Everyone was tempted in different ways.

    Not only Polanski’s action was illegal, but also the mothers since she was negligent, by not supervising her daughter’s modeling activities.

    Did the mother feed her daughter with false grand jury testimony to increase the blame against Roman Polanski so the mother could deflect her own negligence, in causing the sexual collision.

    Also if Samantha lied to her mother, covering up her topless shoot with Polanski prior to the sexual collision, why should we believe Samantha’s grand jury testimony? She lost credibility in deliberately lying to her mother about her prior topless modeling activities with Polanski.

    Every young girl and mother should be aware that if girl tempts a man by being topless, and deliberately hides this from her mother, and the young girl goes back for more there may be trouble, much more than she bargained for. After all men are only human.

    Link: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20124052,00.html

    Wippit – She doesnt say she lied to her mother about it — she says she didnt tell her Mom cuz she wouldnt like it. Nowhere does it say the Mom asked and she lied in her reply, She states however that although it made her feel strange to do it, since he told her to do it she thouht, it must be ok.

    She said in her grand jury testimony that she figured the instruction to take her top off was because that must be how photographers get ‘bare shoulder’ shots like she’d seen in magazines, so thats why she thought he asked her to do it. She reasoned just like a KID

    You say she tempted him with her bare breast. Youre an idiot. HE TOLD HER to do it–she didnt sayshay up to him and suddently drop her shirt to seduce him, moron. And if it tempted him well he should have exercised self control like a adult man. Oh, but you think « men are only human »–meaning men cannot be expected not to drop their pants and force themselves on some girl at the sight of a boob. If that were true it seems we’d have a lot of doctors in in prison right now.

    Your arguements are pathetic and your heart twisted, Your selective mention of facts in the artilce are skewed to your twisted need to blame a 13 year old kid for the transgressions of a selfish, mentally screwed up 43 year old ADULT MAN.

    Jim- Yes Samantha does say she lied to her mother. She lied purposely through omission! Samantha covering up her Topless Shoot with Roman Polanski, by keeping it from her mother. directly led to her downfall, plus the mother was not chaperoning her. All three PLAYERS acted out of self interest. The mother should have been prosecuted for child neglect, and if not negligence on the mother’s part, then mother was after a payout, and Polanski was victimized.

    On Feb. 20, 1977, Polanski took me on our first photo shoot in a hillside area just a few blocks from my house. We shot a roll of film; then he asked me to take off my shirt and took topless photos while I changed. I let him do it, but I felt self-conscious. I was thinking, « I shouldn’t be doing this, » but I was a kid, so I thought if it wasn’t okay, he wouldn’t tell me to do it. If I’d told my mom, she would never have let me go with him the second time. When he made another appointment a few weeks later, she had no reason to suspect anything. I didn’t want to go, but I still thought it would be a good opportunity.

    http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20124052,00.html

    Your argument is not enhanced by your ad hominem attack. Just because Samantha was young does not mean that she did not purposely cover up her topless activities with Polanski which contributed to her downfall.

    LIP – I have indicated this to you before, Jim, I’ll spell it out to you here.

    Your quote fits the GJ testimony of Samantha. But other than that you are projecting. You speculate about what was going on in Samantha’s head quite a bit. But also about what was going on in Roman Polanski’s head.

    Allow me a — in my experience — more plausible speculation. All that happened in 1977, and Roman Polanski was a European man. He had been exposed to the 60s and 70s culture, braless babes, transparent blouses, miniskirts, topless beaches all over Europe (except in the rather dictatorial countries like Spain or Portugal), to nudist beaches in some countries. And sex crime rate didn’t soar, far as I remember (please, don’t ask me for figures).

    Do you really think that someone at his age with that kind of experience could be « instigated » by a mere girl taking her top off, at a shoot at which nothing happened anyway?! I think, he would have been much, much cooler regarding « topless activities » of all sorts of girls and women. Because, you see, he had been exposed to that kind of thing a lot, long before.

    JIm – If Samantha lied to her mother through omission, why should we believe anything that she said to the grand jury, or that she would not lie at all to the Grand Jury? Samantha has lost credibility by purposely concealing her topless shoot with Polanski from her mother. Since she has admitted to one lie through omission, it is more difficult to know when Samantha is telling the truth.

    Samantha who admitted to purposely lying by omission to her mother by not telling her mother the details of the first topless photographic shoot with Polanski is a statement against Samantha’s own interests, and shows that her purpose despite what was happening at the photo shoot which she said she did not like, was to continue her working relationship with Roman Polanski and/or her attraction to Roman Polanski. We don’t really know.

    Also I am not sure what you are trying to argue here, since Polanski was obviously attracted to Samantha in the end and the attraction was consummated. Is there any question that Polanski was not attracted?

    JIm_ Samantha says she lied to her mother, purposely through omission!

    The Lie of Omission – Definition:
    A lie of omission is to remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up. It is a method of deception and duplicity that uses the technique of simply remaining silent when speaking the truth would significantly alter the other person’s capacity (in this case Samantha’s mother) to make an informed decision.

    And the consequences of Samantha lying by omission? Samantha stole her mother’s right to choose the options which were witheld from mother Susan Galley, which would have been to stop any more photography with Polanski. Was her mother free? NO! Samantha’s mother was a slave to Samantha’s deception and manipulation, which in the end caused Samantha’s downfall.

    Was Samantha’s behavior to her mother ethical or moral? NO!
    Was her mother violated and deceived by Samantha? YES!
    Did Samantha serve her own self interests at her mother’s expense? YES!
    Did Samantha engage in lies of omission to her mother? YES!
    Was Samantha’s intention to deceive her mother? YES!

    Of course Samantha’s mother failed Samantha too – in a different way, by not chaperoning Samantha at the photo shoot with Roman Polanski

    What do you suppose this Biblical passage means:
    « Know the truth and the truth will set you free. »

    If the truth sets you free, what do lies do?

    And whats the difference between speaking a lie, and Samantha intentionally withholding the Truth from her Guardian mother Susan Galley?

    LIP- Oh my… a catastrophe of biblical dimensions! A girl committed the severe sin of not lying to her mother, but not telling her the complete truth. So, I guess, she had it coming to her, whatever that was.

    Now that we know all about Eve, can we have Adam’s story, too, please?! And what about the snake?

    JB- In English it is called a lie by omission. See above for definition.

    The biblical reference was more for the validity of that statement,

    If you know the truth it will set you free.

    But I do like what you said since we now know ALL ABOUT EVE, AND HER MOTHER’S NEGLIGENCE towards her, whether inadvertent or intentional. AND WE ALSO KNOW ALL ABOUT STEVE

    Polanski’s statement of May 2nd 2010 is corroborated by another who has been subjected to violations in the same Santa Monica Courthouse, as Roman Polanski so a judge could be promoted to become a Justice on police brutality day.

    ARRESTING ROMAN POLANSKI AFTER 32 YEARS IN SWITZERLAND GIVES STEVE SOME FREE PRESS FOR HIS DESIRE TO BECOME THE NEXT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA

    IN ADDITION A LIE BY OMISSION WAS USED BY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO GET THE SWISS JUSTICE TO ARREST POLANSKI AFTER 32 YEARS.

    Regarding snakes two participants were snakes, first Samantha’s mother by being too free with her daughter which may have been misconstrued to be a green light, then Samantha with the lie of omission which disabled her mother’s guardianship towards her daughter even more, and Polanski was tempted and did not have the strength or decency to resist the temptation, if he was aware of Samantha’s true age, thus all three were culpable and contributed to the sexual collision.

    However only Polanski has been held accountable and for 33 years, which does seem rather unfair, given these particular circumstances

  14. i hope you rot in hell if there is such thing… you should be sent to jail no matter what… and to BHL, god how can you support this ?

  15. Notice that he NEVER says « I can stay silent no longer because I am innocent » – he admitted and continues to admit (when pressed) that he raped a 13 year old girl who repeatedly told him « no. » You deserve more than 42 days in prison for vaginally, anally, and orally raping a 13 year old (or anyone for that matter), no matter WHO you are.

    • Sarah that is incorrect. Polanski plead guilty to the lesser charge of illegal sex with a minor (this is the charge in California, analagous to what is incorrectly labelled ‘statutory rape’ in other states).

      Polanski has never claimed to be a rapist and I’ve never heard him acknowledge hearing her say « no ». It’s possibly she’s lying or that they were both telling the truth and he simply didn’t hear her.

      So, as far as I’m aware he acknowledges putting it in all 3 orifices but he infers that she was « responsive » and did not respond negatively when he asked her if she liked it. Their testimonies conflict.

      The charge he plead guilty to was sex with someone under the age of legal consent, because that’s what illegal sex with a minor basically means. This is different than rape, which is sex with someone who is not consenting (regardless of whether or not such content is admissible).

    • From Wikipedia:
      He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse, a charge which is synonymous under California law with statutory rape.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/roman-polanski-the-truth-about-his-notorious-sex-crime-949106.html

      Quoting: … It was very scary and, looking back, very creepy. » Polanski was subsequently arrested and indicted on six counts: among them, perversion, sodomy and rape by use of drugs…

      and

      http://www.slate.com/id/2229853

      Quoting:

      Polanski pleaded guilty to « unlawful sexual intercourse » with a minor. What’s the difference between that and statutory rape?
      They’re synonymous. Only a few states—Georgia, Missouri, and North Carolina—actually use the term « statutory rape » in their penal codes. Other legal euphemisms for having sex with someone who’s underage include « Rape in the Third Degree » (New York), « Felonious Sexual Assault » (New Hampshire), and « Carnal Knowledge of a Child » (Virginia).

      So, Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to being a rapist. That is the fact, based on the law.

      If anyone wish to deny, that is delusion.

      He was adult at the time and he raped 13 year old girl. Paying her bribe to settle the case, does not help him with criminal charges.

      I wanna see this pedophile in the U.S. court.

  16. Unfortunately for Mr. Polanski, it seems that another victim has accused him of rape – In 1982 English Actress Charlotte Lewis was 16 years old and she now claims she was raped by Mr. Polanski when she was at his Paris apartment. This is not good for Mr. Polanski as there is now a very dangerous situation where other young girls will now be less afraid of coming forward and telling about Mr. Polanski. I think Mr. Polanski should ask the French police to arrest Miss Lewis and interrogate her about why she did not say anything for 28 years? After all, if it is even true that she made love with Roman, that is not a crime in France where man can have sex with girls as young as 15. A strong investigation will send a message to other girls who want to make themselves famous at the cost of ruining Roman Polanski’s life.

    • Shut up Jack!You dont know anything about this story.
      Everybody must respect the law.That’s it.Even if its Roman Polanski!!

    • Emma, I do not believe Jack meant to infer that Polanski should not respect the law. I believe that he is acknowledging the possibility that Lewis is lying to garner attention and if that’s the case, Polanski could sue her for libel (or is it heresay? I get those mixed up…) if she can’t provide evidence of what she’s accusing him of.

    • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/14/charlotte-lewis-polanski-_n_576800.html

      Quoting: He took advantage of me and I have lived with the effects of his behavior ever since it occurred, » said Lewis, reading from a prepared statement at a news conference in her lawyer’s office. « All I want is justice. »

      …the woman provided evidence to a police detective and officials from the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office. She refused to provide specifics and also refused to answer questions about whether her client’s allegations involved drugs or rape.

      Once rapist pedophile, always rapist pedophile.

      How many are still there being silent?

  17. wo incompatible Los Angeles Judicial decisions made simultaneously on Sept 19th 1977 kept Roman Polanski’s sentence vague & ambiguous, enabling Los Angeles prosecutors in Sept 2009 to misinform the Swiss Authorities as to Polanski remaining sentence which at worst is 48 days and at best is nothing.

    And even if 48 days is outstanding it is not 6 months, the magic number.

    Going back 30 years to the 70’s, why would the original Santa Monica Judge, Laurence J. Rittenband after ruling that Roman Polanski was not a mentally disordered sex offender immediately after that rule that Polanski should be evaluated again psychiatrically for another 90 days in California State’s prison facility Chino,

    before that Santa Monica Judge would commit to the 90 day psychiatric evaluation being the final sentence for Roman Polanski,

    or before the Santa Monica Judge would commit to, and reveal a different sentence?

    This really does not make any sense logically, and the 90 day stay at Chino should have been the entire sentence.

    If Judge Rittenband in 1977 intended to commit to another & different sentence, after psychiatrically evaluating Roman Polanski a second time for 90 days this would be the same as the Judge Rittenband giving Roman Polanski two sentences for one crime.

    The second sentence would also be dependent on the first sentence’s outcome, which as it turned out in Polanski’s case was excellent, he was released early. But even so that did not make any difference to the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband who said the prison report was a whitewash.

    Then the same Santa Monica Judge wanted to illegally take away Roman Polanski’s right to fight deportation through coercion in the Judge’s second sentencing of him that was due to take place on Feb 1st 1978.

    The most important thing here is that the Santa Monica Judge ordering on Sept 19th 1977 that Polanski must go to Chino prison for a second psychiatric evaluation, is diametrically opposed to the Judge’s first ruling that Polanski was not a mentally disordered sex offender.

    Because if the Judge found that Polanski was not a mentally disordered sex offender then no further 90 day psychiatric evaluation was necessary at Chino Prison.

    Maybe the original Santa Monica Judge needed an evaluation himself since the two rulings he made at the same time are at odds with each other, and incompatible.

    For the Judge’s two conflicting decisions from Sept 19th, 1977 See Page 36 and Page 48 of the Los Angeles prosecutors filings at:

    http://www.scribd.com

    and the Spokesman Review from Sept 1977 See:

    http://news.google.com

  18. […] Polanski har nektet å uttale seg etter at han ble arrestert for sju måneder siden. Men som Rushblogg tidligere har meldt om, brøt han nylig denne selvpålagte tausheten. I et brev hevder han at amerikanske myndigheter kun er interessert i medieoppstyret rundt saken. “I can no longer remain silent because the United States continues to demand my extradition more to serve me on a platter to the media of the world than to pronounce a judgment concerning which an agreement was reached 33 years ago.” Brevet er lagt ut på nettsiden til et fransk kulturmagasin. Les hele brevet her. […]

  19. Pedophiles are always pedophiles even after 30 years on the lam.
    Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

  20. He was around 40, she was 13.
    She was drugged and the evidence proved he banged her.
    He plead down from rape to sex with a minor which means he admitted to sex with a minor.
    He then skipped bail and fled the country, breaking more laws.
    Whether she now wants it all to go away does not matter, its a matter for a state prosecutor and once he skipped the country he violated state and federal law.
    If you support Polanski and have a daughter of your own you have no soul and child welfare should probably investigate your household because what fiend would support a middl aged man who admits to banging a drugged 13 year old.

  21. Why would the Judge after ruling that Roman Polanski was not a mentally disturbed sex offender on Sept 19th 1977- want to re- evaluate Polanski again psychiatrically for 90 days before committing to that being the final sentence of Roman Polanski or committing to different sentence?
    If the Santa Monica Judge was going to commit to a different sentence after the 90 day evaluation this would be the same as giving Roman Polanski two sentences. In addition the second 90 day pyschiatrict evaluation was unnecessary since the Judge had declared that Polanski was not a mentally disturbed sex offender on Sept 19th 1977.
    It would make more sense that the 90 days was the full sentence for Roman Polanski which is what the original prosecutor’s Roger Gunson said in the movie Polanski Wanted and Desired, and is also in Roger Gunson’s sealed testimony, plus the victim’s lawyer’s testimony corroborates the Los Angeles Prosecutor Gunson’s testimony.
    The first link below is from the County of Los Angeles Prosecutors’ and DA’s brief opposing the unsealing of the original prosecutor in Polanski’s case, Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson’s testimony.
    http://www.scribd.com/full/31058289?access_key=key-16f2o46e5jxoisgvf6lz

    It can be seen that the original 1977 Santa Monica Judge ruled that Roman Polanski was not a mentally disordered sex offender based on the reports of two psychiatrists, See Page 36 and also Page 48 where Judge Rittenband orders Roman Polanski to its prison facility in Chino for an in depth diagnostic evaluation pursuant to 1203.3 of the California penal code.
    Also at

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JNURAAAAIBAJ&sjid=He4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6879,1950498&hl=en

    Roman Polanski’s statement that Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley revived attempts to sentence him last year just to get political votes has ring of truth about it.
    ALL ABOUT STEVE
    At these links the Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley is linked to corruption and retaliation.
    http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/515.php

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/judge-cooleys-retaliation-against-union-members-striking-and-rampant-.html

    According to http://www.fulldisclosure.net Los Angeles DA Steve Cooley has refused to prosecute pedophiles and child molesters who work in the Catholic Church.
    So why is the LA DA Steve Cooley chasing across the world after Roman Polanski now, if he is not prosecuting local California Church’s sexual molesting predator Priests and those Government Officials that cover up the sexual molestation crimes at California’s institutions?
    Could it be if DA Steve Cooley receives political campaign money from the Church, that when the priests sexually molest the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office might turn a blind cheek?
    And does the District Attorney think that he can also use foreign celebrities like Roman Polanski – to fan the World media for LA DA’s Steve Cooley’s own personal campaign in seeking higher office in California.
    And who would benefit from Steve Cooley becoming California’s Attorney General anyway?
    The answer is – only those who are favored such as rich California institutions including churches, and their sexual molesting employees, who may be shielded from Justice if they come bearing gifts.
    If the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office is going to hold people accountable for sexual crimes, then there should be no distinction or discriminatory measures in place, or false extradition requests, where Roman Polanski is selected for prosecution again after 33 years, but not the local government & the Church’s sexual molesters, who get a free pass with the Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley turning a blind eye.
    If this is in fact what is really happening, then isn’t this
all about Steve,
    where it is all about what a prosecution, or what a lack of a prosecution can do for Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley in advancing his political career?
    Other County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Officials have also advanced their careers in much the same manner by having sexual assault victims assaulted and battered in the Santa Monica Courthouse, by the police who covered up the sexual molestation and discrimination complaint. And for their assistance in cover up of sexual molestation crimes they receive promotions to be California Justices.

  22. LRDJ or any Interested Newspaper:

    I have noticed your outstanding interest in Roman Polanski
    case in your newspaper. I believe his extradition case is
    false in the light of events related to my person since
    I was kidnapped by people legitimating to me as the US
    law enforcement and world famous scientist who I can permanently reside in the United States.
    In 2003 I established in Utah my private research
    offices to work on the cold fusion theory in Logan
    Utah after getting PhD from the University of Rochester in the State of New York. On June 8th 2008 I was driving for science conference
    in Calgary. After denial of entry by Canada I was arrested by
    the US emigration only because I was forcibly asked for my
    passport and forcibly interrogated by the US immigration site
    I had no any intention to speak to.
    After a week of a torture of forcible travel in chains
    I was further tortured by storing me for two months in concentration camp in
    Florence Arizona only because officers found the passport of
    the Republic of Poland with me since I was neither capable to speak
    to them nether willed to speak to them.
    I am cut from my property and home in Utah of the value
    approximately equal to Roman Polanski property in Gstaad
    in any violation of the European Union law of house privacy
    exposing my house and property and most confidential personal belongings on public trespass
    where he is forced to stay in the house arrest under remote
    « United States jurisdiction ». My scientific work is further obstructed
    since I cannot get to my computers in my offices in Logan Utah
    neither to my above million dollar value notes I store there.
    If you want to republish my case please translate or alter
    the text from the http://mkken.blox.pl

    Matt Kalinski

  23. Los Angeles former prosecutor Roger Gunson the original prosecutor in Roman Polanski’s case testimony reportedly contradicts the current DA Steve Cooley in regards to the original sentence applicable in Roman Polanski’s 1977 case.

    If Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley made false representations in regards to extraditing Roman Polanski, apart from the harm done to Roman Polanski,

    in addition the California voters have a right to know this, since Steve Cooley is running in a California election as a candidate for California Attorney General,

    and thus the County of Los Angeles court Peter Espinoza should unseal Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson’s testimony in Polanski’s Case, so we can see what the truth of the matter is.

  24. The court should unseal Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson’s testimony in Polanski’s Case

    On May 10 2010 there is a court hearing in County of Los Angeles Judge Peter Espinoza’s Courtroom over the Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson’s sealed testimony obtained from him early this year. Polanski’s lawyers want to send a copy to Swiss Authorities.

    Swiss say they don’t need it to resolve the issue of whether the extradition request is allowed under the treaty with the U.S. as they presume prosecutors seeking extradition requests are telling the truth. I believe Polanski’s lawyers have objected to the Swiss Authorities assumption.

    In addition the people of California have a right to know whether LA’s current District Attorney, Steve Cooley, who is running for California state Attorney General, made false statements in the extradition request of Roman Polanski to Swiss Authorities last year..

    Los Angeles former prosecutor Roger Gunson’s testimony reportedly contradicts the current DA Steve Cooley. If Cooley made false representations, California voters have a right to know this.

    For More See:

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/5/2/175131/5041
    May 08, 2010 4:45 AM

  25. Regarding Rich Geniuses…In Film, In California Politics in the Church…

    We already know that the LA District Attorney is corrupt. See:

    http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/515.php

    Cooley has refused to prosecute the pedophiles and child molesters that work in the Catholic Church.

    Why is District Attorney Steve Cooley going after rich genius Roman Polanski but not after the rich Churches’s sexual molesting and Predator Priests?

    Could it be Steve Cooley is receiving campaign moneys from the Church to be the next Attorney General of California, and may fee obliged to look the other way?

    Why does the LA DA think the taxpayer’s dollars are his and that he can use celebrities like Roman Polanski – to fan the media in Cooley’s campaign to seek higher office.

    And who would want Steve Cooley to become California’s Attorney General if there is a double standard in who he prosecutes

    I guess only those who are giving Steve Cooley campaign money or those who are shielded from Justice such as rich California institutions and their sexual molesting employees.

    If you are going to hold people accountable for sexual molestation then Justice must be evenhanded.

    It should not be to waive prosecution of those who give District Attoreny Steve Cooley political campaign money and to prosecute Polanski for a stale claim, to gain recognition in the World’s media.

    He said people who commit crimes should be held accountable. Even rich « geniuses » who use their wealth to evade justice for 33 years.

  26. What’s the point of punishment? First, to prevent a criminal from further crime. Second, justice and revenge – to make the guilty suffer. Third, to give example to other potential criminals, threaten them. (Four … ???) Polanski’s case shows that punishment is not necessary for a criminal to understand his guilt (his stupidity in this case?) and live a lawful and socially acceptable life from now on. After 30 years, this point of preventing him from further crime is irrelevant. The victim’s revenge is also irrelevant because she has forgiven him in public. Society’s revenge (« all crime must be punished ») is still alive, and it is not surprising – the more diligently law is enforced, the more safe we feel. Another important point here is the threat sent by the law system to the world: we will catch you, even after 30 years.. you will pay full price.. so think dozen times before you commit a crime. But seeing the real evil in the world and how much it’s there, I think this last point is a bit hypocrisy. My proposal as an observer: let him go.

    • « The victim’s revenge is also irrelevant because she has forgiven him in public. Society’s revenge »

      You misunderstand some very important concepts. First, victims’ forgiveness or lack thereof do not determine verdicts in a criminal case. This IS a criminal case, do you understand the difference?

      And I hate to keep bringing up the old war crimes thing, but there are a lot of nice former despots now retired, and former sex traffickers, etc that are living nice quiet lives, supposedly not hurting anyone, according to you. But unfortunately, that is not for you to say. Yes, I’m sorry, but law is not determined by arbitrary persons such as yourself who say « Hey, from what I can tell, this guy is harmless. Let him go. » We’ll leave that to people who have more insight into these things. Polanski has never owned up to what he did, and in that way he continues to harm society.

  27. Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley seems to feel that the taxpayer’s dollars are his personal monies, and that he can use celebrities to seek higher office to be Attorney General of California

    See Also link below for more information:

    http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/515.php

    Steve Ipsen:
    “The corruption that exists in the county that I’m aware of, that I can state here today is with the District Attorney’s office.”

    “This DA doesn’t deserve to be paid when he isn’t doing his job.”
    Albert Robles:

    “He has refused to prosecute the pedophiles and child molesters that work and still work in the Catholic Church”.

    “Steve Cooley takes untold amounts of money from the criminal defense sector”.

  28. Just as it was outrageous for the Catholic Church, to put the untarnished reputation of its priesthood above children’s sufferings, so too those who put their faith in artists should realize that they too have no special claim to being beyond good and evil.

    But as Polanski never claimed this, he admitted his crime, and paid his dues and thus Polanski wins, because he is not a hypocrite, and because he is by far – the lesser of two evils.

    In fact Polanski may not be evil at all. Polanski may even be really good.

    However California & Santa Monica Judges lose out here because they – in not being beyond evil, parallel the Bishops in covering up sexual molestation cases, within their own Rank & File.

    California Justices are not jumping to investigate Santa Monica Judicial Corruption in Polanski’s case which should send up a big red flag.

    Bait and switch justice, illegal coercion in sentencing, is equivalent to raping criminal defendants & civil plaintiffs.

    When a sexual molestation victim in a police cover-up case faces police brutality in the Judge’s Santa Monica Courtroom using undocumented white sheriff deputies, to retaliate, intimidate and silence, so the Santa Monica Judge can gain a promotion to become a California Justice, this is also abuse of Judicial power.

    Finally Federal Judges abuse their power also when they cover up for California Judges and County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputy thugs, so the reputation of the men in black robes can remain untarnished, and so California’s sexual molesters, police cover up con-artists, plus California Justice will also remain forever spotless in the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind.”

  29. County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Judge Laurence J. Rittenband, would have sentenced Roman Polanski in absentia 33 years ago.

    See: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/files/1978_0201_polanski.jpg

    The brand new County of Los Angeles Judge Peter Espinoza on 22nd January 2010 stated in his Los Angeles courtroom that he would like Roman Polanski to come to Los Angeles to receive the original intended sentence –which is the time Mr. Polanski had already spent in a state prison (Chino) under psychiatric evaluation in 1977 & 1978.

    What Los Angeles Judge Peter Espinoza stated on 22nd January 2010 is documented in the New York Times: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/heated-words-at-the-polansk….
    Roman Polanski’s American lawyers may have a transcript…

    If County of Los Angeles Judge Peter Espinoza has stated that Roman Polanski’s sentence, if he were to come to U.S.A, is for the time he has already served 42 days in 1977 & 1978, that there would be no more jail time, then it should follow given this information that Swiss Justice authorities could make a decision to deny the extradition of Roman Polanski to California USA,

    since he does not have a sentence of six months or more, and thus California’s extradition request does not meet Switzerland’s extradition criteria, where extradition can only take place if there is six months or more of prison time to be served.

  30. « This affair was roused from its slumbers of over three decades by a documentary film-maker who gathered evidence from persons involved at the time. »

    Mr. Polanski: You are a famous director. You have derived benefit from your films, and exercised a great deal of influence over the thoughts of others with your films. How can you possibly complain that someone else has used films to express themselves, or cause others to re-examine their own actions, or lack of actions?

    I understand that you have admitted to drugging a 13 year old, and then having sexual intercourse with her. I see you called her a victim. I have not seen you call her a victim of your actions. I have not seen you express the amount of remorse your admitted actions require.

    I express my opinion to you because you decided to address yourself directly to me without any intermediaries and in your own words. In my opinion, your admissions mean you drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, too young to give consent–whether she protested at the time or was too out of it to complain is beside the point. The fact that she is tired of dealing with her trauma is extremely unfortunate, and gives me pause; but I did not get the impression that her well being is your main concern, since you mention her so briefly and focus on yourself so much.

    I am a 30+ year old Californian (born and raised) lawyer. I believe you are being prosecuted for this crime because your fame does not really affect those of my generation; in the past, when a prosecutor wondered whether to seek your extradition, the fact you make (to some) amazing movies might have given them pause. For those of my generation, at least for myself, I find it hard to understand why you HAVEN’T already been arrested and tried. You are being treated as everyone else, Mr. Polanski; there is a warrant for your arrest, and while the Criminal Justice system will not heal the damage done so many years ago, it is our best attempt to deal with great injury done to the victim of your actions.

    In short, cry moar.

    • It’s so easy and confortable to look 33 years back rather than solving the real issues facing the worst criminal justice system in the world. DO YOU HEAR ME GUYS? IN THE CIVILIZED WORLD! the US has the worst criminal justice system in the world. GET REAL GUYS! LEAVE THIS MAN ALONE! How many preast are in jail in the US following the mass sex abuse scandal?
      The Culture of violence under: GOD – GUNS – GREED. The DEATH PENALTY and The prison industry in the United States: big business or a new form of slavery?

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8289

      What this man did was 33 years ago was wrong and really bad! BUT A CORRUPT SYSTEM FAILED TO HANDLE THE CASE! THE SYSTEM IS STILL CORRUPT TODAY! THE SYSTEM IS STILL FAILING TODAY! HOW RELIABLE IS THAT SYSTEM?

      Polanski should be left alone!

    • Maxid, you look hysterical. Please refrain from political diatribes and stick to the relevant facts of the case.

  31. If you wish to be treated like everyone else, Mr. Polanski, then do the time that anyone else would have to do if they had committed the same crimes as you. Plead guilty to rape and sexual assault of a child of the age of 13, then go to jail as any other person would have to in the same situation.

  32. You’re being treated perfectly fairly. You’re being treated like someone who drugs and rapes children, because you drug and rape children. You deserve to rot in jail for the rest of your life.

  33. Im am disgusted!
    both about the comment of Mr/Mrs? yoni and the letter itself.

    Mr Polanski is not a victim he is (in my eyes) the rapist of a 13 year old drugged girl. The scandal is he got away with it after 42 days in prison (oh my poor Mr Polanski no VIP prison? what a shame!) inthe first place and was celebrated all through the years just the same. His letter shows no regret about what he did, which shows to me he has not learned anything and thinks just being prominent gives you special rights.

    And Mr/Mrs Yoni if you want to tangle this with Mr Ploanskis religion.. up to now I did not even know Mr Polanksi is jewish. If you want to support rassistic tendencies then using Mr Polanskis relegion and personal fate as an excuse for his deeds is really the best way to start.

  34. So sad that a great person like you is being scrutinized for so long. In my opinion what you are going through all along these years is worse than jail. you have more than enough paid for one mistake and for all you have been through you deserve to be forgiven.
    People please remember what this courageous man went through- survival and loss of family in the holocaust, Brutal murder of his lovely pregnant wife, being hated for so long for being successful bohemian and Jewish (yes thats still the world we live in – i bielieve that many of the negative talk-backers here are motivated by a deep racsist emotion) , and even though he went through all that Roman is a creative person who kept exploring film in the most original way, giving us wonderful moments to enjoy.
    Roman please be strong- for many of us you are one of the most remarkable people around. we do not forget that and we know that you are in the right this time.
    Warmest regards
    YBT

    • yoni-And please remember what that 13 year old girl withstood because some 45 year-old man refused to control himself, and thought he had the right to do whatever he wanted. And god yoni, stop being a ridiculous sycophant.

    • He raped a child. He pled guilty, then he fled the country after having served only half of his sentence. Why should he be pardoned these crimes just because he has suffered losses in the past? Why should he be forgiven for DRUGGING AND ANALLY RAPING A CHILD just because he’s artistic and Jewish?

    • Read the transcript of her evidence. He offered her a drug, quaaludes, which she took, knowing what it was, since she’d seen it in her own home. He asked her if she was on the pill and when she said no he suggested anal intercourse instead of vaginal. Her age makes his offense statutary rape. But if she had been of legal age, would it count as rape?

    • Didier, why you consider any of that relevant is only for the truly desperate to appreciate.

    • Hi Yoni

      You’re a great guy! I admire your courage! the US has the worst criminal justice system in the civilized world! GOD, GUNS and GREED Everywhere ( In God We Trust on the dollar bill, laughable, Ludicrous), but justice NOWHERE!
      Everybody should keep a low profile and leave this man alone!

    • Hi Maxid
      You’re a nutcase! I admire your absolute batshit craziness!

  35. You are a child rapist who has no remorse for the crime you committed. You ego is a model of self delusion. 15 years in California prison is what you owe for your crime. You had a choice every day over the past 30 years to walk through the doors of the U.S. Embassy and face up to your crime. You chose not to. Now you’re caught and you life is essentially over. Believe us when we tell you that neither the media or the public is that interested in you.

  36. You were an adult. A man of responsibilities. Part of being an adult is realizing why a child is not capable of making decisions, particularly sexual decisions.

    There was no agreement met 33 years ago… You did not fulfill your part of the agreement. You ran from your responsibilities. I love your films. You are one of the greatest directors from the past century. I will remember you for that.

    I will also remember you as a pedophile who ran from his responsibilities. That girls family should get 5 minutes alone with you in a room where anything goes. However, something tells me that you’d be better off spending the rest of your life in jail compared with what I’d do to you in that room if it was my daughter.

    PAY YOUR DUES!

  37. I believe you mister Polanski…and I wish you the best: your freedom

  38. « This affair was roused from its slumbers of over three decades by a documentary film-maker who gathered evidence from persons involved at the time. I took no part in that project, either directly or indirectly. The resulting documentary not only highlighted the fact that I left the United States because I had been treated unjustly; it also drew the ire of the Los Angeles authorities, who felt that they had been attacked and decided »

    Uh-huh. None of this supposed conspiracy negates the fact that you admitted guilt, that at best you only had reasonable doubt as a cause to think that you would be treated unfairly, and you fled the law. YOU are still the criminal, Roman. You keep sidestepping that little issue. And one has to wonder, if someone raped your daughter, fled the country, and wrote a letter like this, if any of it would appeal to YOUR sense of justice.

  39. Roman: Nothing, NOTHING, you ever say will ever make up for the hideousness that was « Pirates. » May you forever feel the shame.

  40. Oh, one other thing, Roman, don’t think for a minute that you highlighting the emotional turmoil of your victim in any ways demonstrates that you care at all about her and her plight. Everyone knows this is all about you and what you want for yourself. You are only using your victim (again) as a shield, a way to deflect any more publicity for you. And that makes you even worse of a person that might have been thought previously.

  41. Roman, whatever happens, you’ve demonstrated to all that you are a pathetic, ignorant human being. That is a sentence you will never get out of. And no « genius » movie will ever compensate for that.

  42. He would do it, surely… if he believed in US justice. But he doesn’t. Do you?

  43. The Los Angeles Times in Feb 1st 1978 says the original Santa Monica Judge Laurence J. Rittenband would have sentenced Polanski in absentia, so why could the new Judge not sentence Polanski in absentia in 2010?
    See: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/files/1978_0201_polanski.jpg
    At least the Los Angeles Judge Peter Espinoza could have given him a sentence which then would have given the Swiss Justice clarity in regards to extradition,
    instead of the sentence being vague, murky and in dispute.
    However perhaps Polanski’s sentence is not at all vague, since at the JANUARY 22nd 2010 hearing Judge Peter Espinoza explained
    “Nothing precludes the possibility [that the original Santa Monica Judge in 1977 in Polanski’s case] Judge Rittenband’s [original] promise will someday be enforced,”
    But more importantly County of Los Angeles Judge Espinoza also stated on January 22nd: “I don’t disagree that the intended sentence was the time Mr. Polanski already spent in a state prison (Chino) under psychiatric evaluation. »
    This is documented in the New York Times:
    http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/heated-words-at-the-polansk
    So if Polanski’s sentence is to time has already served i.e. 42 days, then it would follow that Swiss Justice should deny extraditing Polanski, since it does not meet Switzerland’s extradition criteria, since the criteria dictates that Roman Polanski would have to face 6 months of jail time or more to be extradited, but according to the new County of Los Angeles Judge Peter Espinoza it looks as if Roman Polanski is not facing any more prison time at all.
    The first Catch 22 is this, the County of Los Angeles Judge Espinoza says Roman Polanski is only facing time served, but yet refuses to sentence him in absentia, which would end this never ending story.
    Ever since Judge Espinoza made his January 22nd 2010 comment concerning Polanski’s sentence to be the time he has already served, this has not stopped the Los Angeles District Attorneys Office continuing with their extradition request, which now seems to be more of a scheme to add more clout to the Los Angeles District Attorneys lust for power, so that the Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley can be the next Attorney General of California, at the expense of another famous person Roman Polanski, who in addition to already serving his time at Chino, is proven to be harmless after 33 years.
    Let us not forget the dégoûtant vicious cycle.
    Polanski’s arrest in 2009 and pending extradition deflects attention away from the Santa Monica Judicial & Prosecutorial corruption against him in 1977, which caused Polanski to be entraped in a Catch-22 situation in 1978 where there was serious Santa Monica Judicial Misconduct against him, he was damned if he stayed and damned if he fled, & this Judicial corrupton in turn caused him to flee America in 1978.
    Roman Polanski would not have returned to California in 1977 after the Judge permitted him make a movie outside of the country if his intent was to flee justice.
    Polanski only left Los Angeles when the Santa Monica Judge treated him unfairly.
    Roman Polanski’s case is not the only case of foul play where County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Judges and County of Los Angeles District Attorneys who are seeking promotion to become California Officials will victimize the defenseless and it doesn’t matter whether it is a criminal defendant or a sexual assault and police cover up victim, in order to gain that promotion, using illicit & hidden power.
    Also it does not matter whether you are a rich or poor victim, because these County of Los Angeles and California Officials, like vultures will search for your vulnerability, and with each different victim comes a different California Official promotion opportunity.
    We who have been harmed by this foul play are being sold out and denigrated, our lives ruined so these California Officials can sweep corruption under the rug, receive respectability and praise, and promotion at our expense, in addition to advancing their status, along with covering up their own illegitimate power & corruption.

  44. Dear Mr Polanski,

    I’m sorry I don’t have any pity for someone who molested a 13-year-old girl even if it was 33 years ago… For all that matters it could be 200 years ago, it would be the same.

    You want to be treated fairly like everyone else ? face your judges… what do you fear? if you’re innocent like you pretend, if you did your time in jail like you pretend then the truth will prevail.

    You want to be treated fairly? come out of your Gstaad Manor and face your judges… there are worst things than spending time in a luxurious place and not everybody can hide waiting extradition in such a place.

    You’re probably right that some people want media attention but the fact is YOU DID molest that 13-year-old girl… so maybe I react like this because I do have a 13-year-old daughter but it’s high time you pay for your crimes.

    I’ll never feel any pity for a child molester just because that person has money or is a famous director

    you were one of my favorites directors by the way …. until I heard about all this that is and I did boycott your last movie because I can’t help thinking about that horrible thing that you did. How can you actually look at yourself in the mirror? you RAPED a 13-year-old !

    I would hope you’d be human enough to end all this AND go to the US to face your judges but if you’re not… I hope you’ll be forced to do so.

  45. Polanski: You drugged a child then you raped her in the vagina and rectum. Get lost.

    Polanski: Vous droguée un enfant et l’a violée dans le vagin et le rectum. Perdez-vous.

  46. So go to California and plead your case before the appellate court. Stop hiding and dodging responsibility for your actions. Thirty days is a very light sentence for rape, but you can make the case before a court of law as to why it was lawfully agreed upon and why you should be spared a regular sentence. Stop being a coward.

  47. Will Corruption win out again in Los Angeles?

    The Los Angeles times in Feb 1978 says the original Santa Monica Judge Laurence J. Rittenband would have sentenced Polanski in absentia so why can that not happen in 2010?

    At least the Los Angeles Judge Peter Espinoza could give an exact sentence which would give the Swiss Justice something to work with, instead of something vague and murky.

    However at the JANUARY 22nd 2010 hearing where the County of Los Angeles Judge, Peter Espinoza refused to sentence Polanski in absentia.

    Judge Espinoza said  » “Nothing precludes the possibility that the original Santa Monica Judge in 1977 in Polanski’s case] Judge Rittenband’s [original] promise will someday be enforced,”

    And the Judge added: “I don’t disagree that the intended sentence was the time Mr. Polanski already spent in a state prison (Chino) under psychiatric evaluation. »

    What Judge Espinoza said on January 22nd 2010 in court is documented at:
    http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/heat

    So if Polanski’s sentence is for time served i.e. 42 days, then it would follow that Swiss Justice should deny extraditing Polanski, since Roman Polanski has already served his time in California.

    County of Los Angeles Judge Espinoza’s January 22nd 2010 statement means the Los Angeles Prosecutors request for Roman Polanski’s extradition does not meet the Swiss criteria for extradition which criteria needs to be that Roman Polanski is facing at least 6 months of jail time or more, but according to Judge Espinoza it looks as if he is not facing any more prison time at all.

    So here is another Catch 22. County of Los Angeles Judge Espinoza says Polanski is only facing time served, but yet refuses to sentence him in absentia, which would end this never ending story.

    Ever since Judge Espinoza made his January 22nd 2010 statement, about Roman Polanski’s sentence being time served, this has not stopped the District Attorneys Office extradition request to Switzerland for Roman Polanski.

    The DA’s office have continued to insist on Polanski’s extradition, which now seems to be more of a ploy to add more clout to the Los Angeles District Attorneys lust for power, to be the next Attorney General, at the expense of another famous person Roman Polanski, who in addition to already serving his time at Chino, is proven to be harmless after 33 years.

    Let us not forget the dégoûtant vicious cycle at work here.

    Polanski’s arrest in 2009 and pending extradition deflects attention away from the Santa Monica Judicial & Prosecutorial corruption against him in 1977, which caused Polanski to be trapped in the first Catch-22 situation which in turn caused him to flee America in 1978.

    Roman Polanski would not have returned to California in 1977 after the Judge permitted him make a movie outside of the country if his intent was to flee justice.

    Polanski only left Los Angeles and the Santa Monica Judge when he was treated unfairly.

    His case is not the only case of foul play where Santa Monica Judges and County of Los Angeles District Attorneys who seek promotion will victimize the defenseless in order to gain that promotion.

    It does not matter whether you are rich or poor, because these California Officials, like vultures will search for your vulnerability, and with each different victim comes a different but highly sought after Official Promotion opportunity.

    We are being sold out and denigrated, our lives ruined so these California Officials can sweep corruption under the rug, receive praise and a promotion at our expense, as well as enhancing their own illicit power.

    • Or, it could just be they are after a fugitive who flouted the law. Which is what happened. Whether or not they get their credibility back after doing so is a peripheral point.

  48. Dear Mr Polanski

    I cannot remain silent because there appears within your own statement no mention of a “profound sorry and sincere apology” for the deep hurt which you have quite obviously caused this woman and her family which has rested with them for all their lives.

    I cannot remain silent because the majority of your statement seems only concerned about the protection of Yourself.

    I cannot remain silent because although your own parents were killed in the Concentration Camps of Europe and although your own previous wife and children were murdered in Los Angeles this DOES NOT give you the right to abuse others.

    I cannot remain silent because when you are a “film director” in Hollywood does not mean that you have the right to take advantage of anyone significantly younger than you because of your own sexual desires and despite the fact that this often happens in the “very sick film industry” which you represent, whether they are under-age or not.

    I cannot remain silent because when you decide to work and live in a foreign country in order to promote yourself and enhance your career, with no doubt great financial gain and prestige in mind, you have to accept the norms and culture of that country whether you agree with it or not. An intelligent person who decided to live in Saudi Arabia, for example, would be extremely stupid to transgress their own cultural norms.

    I cannot remain silent because although you have decided to moan and complain about the fact that you have mortgaged your own no doubt luxurious residence in Paris, none of your multi-millionaire “Hollywood Friends” seem to have “stepped in” to help you. Perhaps this says more about them than about you and the world which you have chosen to inhabit.

    I cannot remain silent because your own wife knew very well about your past before she agreed to marry you, and with sadness, your own children, born from her, are now taking on this suffering as well.

    I cannot remain silent, Mr Polanski, because maybe it is Time that you faced up to Yourself?

    I cannot remain silent because I know that within the USA Justice System (I am not from the USA myself) it is quite possible for “famous people” to defend themselves as both Michael Jackson and O J Simpson were and are extremely aware. This would obviously not be so easy in places like China or Saudi Arabia for example. You still have this option as you did then in the 1970’s.

    I cannot remain silent because despite the quite enormous suffering you seem to create around you, you do not appear to have learnt your lesson.

    I cannot remain silent because maybe it is time that you chose to live a Hermit Life so that in the future despite your own sad past, you do not continue to cause so much harm and suffering to those that become close to you.

    I cannot remain silent since merely because you have created great films, no doubt with the suffering of others in mind, you do not appear to have practiced the same yourself.

    I cannot remain silent because despite everything, I do not really believe that you are genuinely and honestly telling me the Truth.

    yours sincerely

    Jonathan, a philosopher, in Brussels

  49. It’s interesting to see that Polanski claims that the 42 days he spent in Chino ‘covered the totality’ of his sentence. I don’t know of any modern-day court that would hand down such a light sentence for this type of crime. It’s also interesting to point out that he claims to sympathise with the victim who is ‘harrassed’ every time the case is brought up – if Polanski truly felt for his victim he would have owned up to the crime and his sentence (in its totality) in the first place.

    In an attempt to clear himself once again, Polanski is clearly demonstrating that he still fails to understand or accept the magnitude of what he did – and what he continues to do – to his victim.

    As a film enthusiast, I find it hard to respect Polanski’s creative talent because of this.

  50. California has the fairest, most impartial and lenient judicial system in the world. Even O.J. got off! Roman, come, feel our sense of justice, we welcome you.

    I get the idea this guy won’t do so well in the prison system « general population »

  51. i agree with jeanpaul, some of these comments make westerners look uncivilized… read the letter, folks. if you don’t want to support roman polanski personally, that’s sensible enough. but the law being broken for the sake of some good old publicity, as you have in this case where the judge decided the sentence wasn’t good enough after roman served it, that is the real issue here. the fact that roman speaks openly about this from his position of wealth and fame shines a light on the bigger picture, illuminating a world where this can happen to anybody, not just the super rich. he did the time and they decided he should do more. yes it’s convenient that he’s wealthy as all get out, and he could flee the country when the law was after him, i’m not sure this is really a good reason to bitterly point the finger and call him a child rapist. how can you claim that the time you are demanding he serve will « reform » him? is that even what you want? or do you just want to see a well known celebrity get kicked in the crotch? and i’d really like to know, does everyone want to pull the feds and law enforcement off of important murder cases and terrorist investigations, to go after roman polanski? for what, public relations? it’s not very kind to the victim, bringing this up over and over, when she asks repeatedly that it be dropped so she can go on with her life. this underscores corruption at the root of our nation’s criminal justice system, when people can’t even work it out like human beings because the stupid gears of idiot justice have been set in motion.

1 2