I can remain silent no longer!

Roman Polanski

Roman-PolanskiThroughout 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 réponses à “I can remain silent no longer!”

  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. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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

  13. 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 ?

  14. 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.

  15. 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?

  16. 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

  17. […] 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. […]

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

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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

  22. 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.

  23. 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

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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”.

  27. 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.”

  28. 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.

  29. “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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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!

  34. 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.

  35. 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!

  36. “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.

  37. Roman: Nothing, NOTHING, you ever say will ever make up for the hideousness that was “Pirates.” May you forever feel the shame.

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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.

  45. 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

  46. 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.

  47. 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”

  48. 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.

  49. Me, me, me, me…

    Poor Roman. Everybody’s after me.

    Stop the whining and face the music, cockroach.

    • Roman never did anything wrong. He had a perfectly normal sexual relationship with a charming young girl, something which both of them surely enjoyed. There is no reason whatsoever why Roman should ever be put in jail. Why on earth is this excellent film-maker being persecuted by some intolerant, narrow-minded people like this evil district-attorney? Can it be that some bigoted people suffer from an inferiority complex, feeling frustration when confronted with such a succesfull and talented person like Roman? Really, this is like a return to the dark ages of witch hunting and prejudice. I thought this was the open-minded 21th century with sexual freedom and tolerance. Let´s all stand by Roman, one of the best film-makers of this century, and protect everyones right to a free, unlimited life in the thrue spirit of tolerance of this enlightened 21th century.

    • Willem: Bravo! Everything in your satirical (it WAS satire, right?) encapsulates all the idiocy of the apologists. You could have been a tad more subtle, but still, I laughed.

    • You’re an idiot. Stop talking. Instead you should read and listen more.

  50. i am not sure why we should care what happens to Roman. You did something that’s very unforgivable. You at a age of 40+ drugged and had sex with a girl age 13. You don’t sound like a normal guy. You should be put in mental institution or life in prison. I can’t believe countries give people like Roman that much freedom; shame on all the E.U countries.

  51. Polanski is jewish , so being one of Gods people, he does not have to comply with U.S. law–Under Talmudic law this is not a crime. Jews should have “special treatment”

  52. Funny, it seems that all the people who leave comments here judge Mr. Polanski without even reading this letter. He claim that he already plead guilty and serve times for what he did, and yet the blind mod here keep screaming he should be punish for trying to escape justice.
    I grow up in China, and I thought the Westerners are be the civilized ones, lol

    • We’ve read the letter. We also know that he barely served any time. China has a wonderful history of patience and scholarship. I suggest you try following it to educate yourself on this subject.

  53. He is a vile man and deserves no more of our attention. Seriously, what is the theory? “Sure he raped a 13 year old girl, but he made Chinatown!”

    there is no excuse for what he did. and he deserves to face the full consequences under the law.

  54. Go to jail like you deserve you child rapist. Register as a sex offender, attend the mandatory classes and then disappear into obscurity like you deserve. No one wants to hear your arrogant “poor me” whining. You’re an admitted rapist and “fair” is sending you to jail like you deserve. So stop whining.

  55. RP,

    You are a child rapist and fugitive from justice. Don’t worry, I don’t pity you…I depise you and cannot wait until you finally have to face the consequences of your actions.

  56. Oh shut up, Polanski. Not only a rapist and a coward, but now a crybaby too? I laugh at the thought of your “betrayal” – you fled the country to avoid the sentence for a crime you admitted to! I have a hard time feeling sorry for you, when even common street thugs report to serve their time. Also, you lost the right to cite the victim’s wishes the minute you drugged and raped her. It’s not classy to keep bringing her up. If there is a media circus surrounding the victim, it is only because she has the misfortune of being a victim of RAPE by a monster who refuses to accept his punishment.

    You will find the US Prison system only too eager to dismiss accusations of rape. Good luck.

  57. You are a cowardly rapist. You fled the country. Now you must pay for your crime. I don’t care how important you feel yourself to be. You are not a victim, you are a criminal. The true victim was a 13 year old girl and just because she wants it dropped doesn’t mean what you did, did not happen.

    Now you’re a prisoner in a well to do home, you should have thought about the prison you put a little girl in 30 years ago. And she wasn’t the first, was she?

  58. The only thing Polanski should open his mouth for is to apologize to this girl that is now a woman. Not only for raping her to begin with as a 13 year old child, but for continuing to use her weariness of this story to stay of jail, where he belongs. Other men are in jail for decades for doing what he did. Why should he get anything less?

  59. I wholeheartedly wish and hope Mr. Polanski to be released at the earliest opportunity so he can return to his family and friends, and can continue his work.

    • That’s nice of you, Ivo. And what do you hope for the girl that he raped, now a woman?

  60. Mr. Polanski is leaving out a key plea bargain fact – the judge expected him to serve 90 days at Chino. At the time the Chino facility was considered easier than a regular prison, it was done as a favor to Mr Polanski. Unfortunately he was allowed to leave after 42 days because he was not mentally ill. The attempt to make his 90 days go easier back-fired on the judge. The Judge could have fairly sentenced Polanski to the remaining 48 days and still stay within the frame-work of the original plea bargain. Mr Polanski complicated matters by traveling to Europe (had permission to finish a film only) and was photographed drinking and partying with underage girls. According to reports the Judge was very upset and may have imposed a more severe penalty. The truth is we do not know if the judge would have sentenced him to 48 days (to meet the plea bargain requirements) or a more severe penalty because Polanski did not show up at the hearing – Polanski skipped out on the agreement before the judge did.

  61. What joy. An adult plies a 13 year-old with alcohol and quaaludes, and he v*ginally and *nally rapes her while she is asking him to stop. Not a problem to some, I guess. Read the 13 year-old girl’s horrifying official testimony: (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html):
    *
    Polanski gives a 13 year-old girl champagne and asks her to take her shirt off (pg. a15). He gives her a quaalude. The victim states that she would not have taken the quaalude if she had not been drunk (pg.a18). Polanski insists she get naked despite her protests (pg. b4).
    *
    The victim asks to be taken home several times. Polanski refuses (pgs. b4, b8, b9). She makes up a story about needing to go home to get her asthma medicine (pgs. b6, b7, b8). Polanski refuses.
    *
    Polanski forces himself upon her and begins to commit sexual intercourse. The victim says, “No, stop.” (pg. b12). Polanski becomes concerned as to when the girl last had her period or if she were taking birth control medicine (pg. b13). Apparently afraid that he might get the girl pregnant, Polanski *nally rapes her. The victim states that she only resisted a little at this time, “Because I was afraid of him.” (pg. b14). Polanski is distracted by a woman entering the house. The girl takes the opportunity to put her panties back on. Polanksi then removes her panties to resume intercourse with her. (pg. b16).
    *
    Yup. Not a problem. I wonder if Polanski’s supporters would care if the same happened to one of their daughters.
    *
    Oh, and the documents pertaining to his “completed prison sentence” are also online (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html). In the agreement he made in person with the judge, Polanski agrees to undergo evaluation as required by California law (pgs. 7-8). He agrees that his crime carries a 1-15 year sentence (pg. 7). He agrees that sentencing will not take place until after his evaluation (pg. 7). Polanski’s few weeks in jail were an evaluation. He fled before sentencing. Polanski did *not* serve out a sentence. He was not even sentenced before flight.

  62. So under the influence of some bizarre delusion, Mr. Polanski is suggesting that the original sentence he served of 44 days, is enough punishment for repeatedly raping a 13 year old girl? Is that whats happening?

  63. Mr. Polanski should be treated “like anyone else” who has drugged and raped a child. Put his pedophile ass in jail.

  64. “Wow. Amazing stuff here. First off, she was both vaginally and anally penetrated after having been drugged. The medical evidence clearly demonstrate this. I can never quite understand why so many who argue for Polanski in this matter have such little grasp of the facts of the case.

    Why are so many defending a jerk who raped a 13 year old girl anyway?”
    ————————-
    I have three daughters here in California, and if you did what you did to any of them, the few years you would serve in prison would never be enough for the pain and anguish you would have caused my family. 13 years old . . . What were you thinking?

    You think 42 days is Justice for raping a little girl? Dude get real! You are a pedophile, and I wonder how many other victims you got away with, since your method was to knock them out with drugs. Sick Man . . . Sick.

    If you do the crime, you need to do the time. In China you would be killed by their justice system, and in less then a year. Be thankful you raped her in California.

    You make me sick. If your fans think you should be free, then they obviously don’t have daughters of their own. I hope the Swiss see you for what you really are, a pedophile who sodomizes young innocent girls, a coward, and someone who lived most of their life without the memories of doing time in a state prison. (Misdemeanor criminals serve 6 months to 12 months, you are a felon, 42 days? Whatever.)

    Mr Steele

  65. Forty-two days does not seem like much for the crime committed. However, many women sentenced for pedophilia and rape in the US today often receive sentences of as little or even less time! Roman Polanski, deserving or not, served the time he was given as part of his plea deal. If the court had been unhappy with the terms of the deal (which they are very keen to make when it serves their purposes) they should not have agreed to it in the first place.

  66. How sad, someone is treating this rapist and child molester poorly? Awful.

    Clearly the US needs to be more kind and compassionate to rapists, if we keep treating them badly we’ll end up driving more rapists out of the country… then who will molest small children for us?

    Maybe we should be nicer to murderers as well? We’d hate to run out of psychopaths and rapists at the same time… thankfully Europe looks willing to take in these poor misunderstood child rapists… I guess the children in Europe had things too easy before so more of them needed raped and abused.

    Why is everyone being so mean to the poor misunderstood child abuser and rapist? If you can’t get off scot-free after drugging and raping a child… what good is being rich and famous anyhow? Right?

  67. I think drugging and raping a 13 year old girl is a serious enough crime that it should ruin your (otherwise charmed) life. If the same happened to one of your children, I imagine you wife would not think 42 days in jail would constitute justice. However imperfect the US or any other judicial system, you have invited its imperfections into your life with your actions. If you are looking for peace, you will have to face the music. If you are looking to scoot free out of it, I hope you re not successful.

  68. YOU ARE MANIPULATED, CAN’T YOU SEE? I bet a lot of people criticize Polański just becouse the media do this. It’s always easy to criticize but what about Your lives? Maybe you should start controlling them instead of judging the others?! If you are passive,afraid of taking any action or fighting for your dreams it’s your problem. Success isn’t manna, it’s a payment for years of hard working, so being jelalous isn’t fair. People always want to see celebrities from the worst side to be sure they are not gods and make the same human mistakes (most of You have slept with someone uderage). It’s not my subjective opinion, it’s psychology :)
    Are you having sadistic satisfactinion from somebody’s suffering? Watch same hard porn ald leave him alone! Let him do what he is best in- films.

  69. Stop running and fight. The more u run the more guilty u look and just remember, u still have to live with what u did. And should we applaud that you served time in Chino?

  70. You want to be treated like anyone else? Gladly! Anyone else who’s plead guilty to, was convicted of, and has subsequently bragged and joked in the press (Martin Amis interview 1979) about raping a kid would serve jail time. So get over yourself and get your ass in jail, like anyone else.

  71. Oh please… Read the letter before you comment. Sure anal rape of a 13 year old girl is horrible. But the reason we have a court with a judge is that someone who has made poor decisions should be able to somehow pay for them. Its not mr Polanski’s fault that the US judge decided to only sentence him for 42 days. He served the time the judge decided, and now its time that we let it go. If you’re truly unhappy about sentence try to change the system. Dont take it out on someone “innocent”. And remember that the girl is still affected every time the case is resurfacing.

    • hannah, read the case before you comment. What the judge did was QUESTIONABLY legal (more like unethical, though.) What Polanski did was UNDOUBTEDLY illegal. “And remember that the girl is still affected every time the case is resurfacing.” You have Roman to thank for that. If you want to blame anyone, it all rests squarely on him, his actions, and his refusal to own up to his crime. Even in this ridiculous letter he wrote us, do you see any apology? No, it’s all the same bile he’s been spewing for years: “This is so unfair to me. I’m such a victim.”

  72. Rape…it’s okay after enough time has gone by. Raping a teenager…it’s okay if her mom says go ahead and hit it. Anally raping a virgin…it’s okay if the drugs make her easygoing. And if the victim is so traumatized and weary of you fighting the charges that she just wants the horror to end, then it’s totally okay.

    You’ve had plenty of time to run around on that teensy bit time. But it’s okay. We know you won’t come back on your own. You’d have to be a man to do that, and real men don’t do to children what you did to at least one little girl.

  73. Funny… he can remain silent no longer. But he refrains from saying A WORD about what he did to that young girl 30 or so years ago. He’s slime. Europe can have him.

  74. Lets assume that everything you say is true (something I don’t necessarily believe…but lets just assume)…the simple fact is that there were appropriate legal remedies at you and your lawyers disposal at the time of sentencing to correct any real or perceived injustices due to the Judge or the prosecutor’s misrepresentations or misconduct. “Fleeing the jurisdiction” is NEVER an appropriate or legal remedy. Flight from justice is itself a crime, a separate crime for which you should be prosecuted for. Extradition is absolutely necessary to deter future affluent individuals from believing that their wealth entitles them to decide which laws they will adhere to…and which they will ignore.

  75. Polanski spent 42 whole days in Chino for Rape. I don’t think he mentioned that in his rantish bleat.

    It’a nice, so to speak, that in his second point he stands up for the person he raped by saying this would be against her wishes because she’s tired of being dragged out into limelight.

    Well Roman, had you the character to realize that 42 days in jail for Rape would never be satisfactory in anyone’s mind this would have been over along time ago. You should have stayed and dealt with the justice you deserved.

    I grew up and went to school near Hughes Jr. High School where the Victim had been enjoying a life as a young girl in SoCal.

    And Roman Polanski continues to bitch about the lack of justice he’s rec’d.

    I hope this helps.

  76. You served your sentence? Only in your sick mind do rapists do a few weeks in jail. This is not the movies, it’s real life. Go back and serve your 2 years maximum like a man. Then you can travel anywhere.

  77. Polanski, It’s more than a little disingenuous of you to cry your crocodile tears over the victim’s pleadings that the case be dropped because she gets harassed every time it comes up- she gets harassed by a vulture media and by your friends and defenders (which generally includes the vulture media) because your ‘defense’ has ALWAYS included blaming your child victim for the fact that you drugged and raped her.
    You have never publicly insisted that your friends and defenders leave her alone either, nor have we ever seen you admitting that you’ve harmed her and her family enough already.

  78. You, sir, are a coward. You have not done penance for your crime, nor have you expressed regret. Stand up and walk into US custody with your head held high, and face your judgement like a man. One day you will face God as your judge, and there will be no bail-jumping or extradition fighting there. Bon chance, mon ami, and my God have mercy on your soul.

  79. I can remain silent no longer, prison is for the common people. I, Roman Polanski, am beyond man’s law. As the meglomaniac that I am, how dare you assert your laws on my person. The bitch deserved it!

    • Whether Polanski is or isn’t above the law, I don’t know. But if you think that no one is…boy, you got some observing to do. Laws are a tricky thing – especially with those who make them / influence them.

  80. Mr. Polanski is not a victim. To try and potray himself as one takes away from the true victim, again. Mr. Polanski is a sorry excuse for a human being.

  81. “I ask only to be treated fairly, like anyone else.” Mr. Polanski, how exactly do you think people who drug and rape children are normally treated? Because “they flee to Europe, have a long successful career, and become quite wealthy” isn’t actually the answer. Nor is “if they run away and stay gone long enough, everybody forgives and forgets.” Being treated fairly, like anyone else, for raping a child involves a long prison term.

  82. Chris R – you’re quite mistaken or live in a fantasy world – the medical evidence DISCREDITS this entirely. Where you have your info from eludes me. Look on smokinggun where you can find that there was NO anal or vaginal trauma in any form. Absolutely nothing to prove rape. The girl lied, end of.

    • Actually, Marshal, Roman already admitted to drugging her and having sex with her. You don’t need signs of trauma for it to be rape. You need to be enlightened, end of.

    • Keep on dreaming, Chris. He did NOT admit to ‘drugging’ nor raping or sodomising her – and anal and vaginal rape ALWAYS leaves trauma. Ask any genuine rape victim. ‘Rape’ by legal definition is forceful intercourse only, nothing else. There was no forceful intercourse ergo, no ‘rape’.

  83. Great game of misdirect Polanski. Can we focus on your cleverly worded “common law crimes” which is where the focus should be? You drugged a 13 year old girl then raped her in every opening in here body even telling her that you were raping her in the ass to do her the great favor of not getting her pregnant. You were allowed to plead to the ridiculous sentence of 6 weeks in jail and when you found out you were gong to have to serve the WHOLE 6 WEEKS (whew) you fled the country like the cowardly rapist you are. Yes, it sounds like the judge changed his mind about letting you serve less than the whole 6 weeks but guess what? Judges change their minds all the time at practically every trial there is. What he did was come to his senses. Just the fact that you wrote “common law crimes” shows what a deceitful rapist you are. Say it, you raped her and then admitted raping her because in your sick little world you thought you hadn’t done anything wrong. Artists like yourself are allowed to get young girls drunk and drugged so they can have their moment of rape entitlement, right? Well guess what? You’re coming back to face the music for RAPING A 13 YEAR OLD!!! Your trying to make yourself the victim here is disgusting and makes matters worse. What you really don’t want to happen is for the facts of what you did to be splashed all over the press back here. But it’s gonna happen little rapist…

  84. This is a joke, right? Absolutely astounding the amount of hubris this man shows. But then again, this is the same person that got away with raping a 13 year old child for 30+ years. Mr. Polanski believes he’s a “victim” in all this. Hah! You’ve been a fugitive for 30+ years because you didn’t want to spend another 45 DAYS in jail? Really? You’ve had this yoke about your neck because you didn’t want to spend another 45 DAYS? That is the pathetic.

  85. I’m sorry Roman, but I’m afraid life is not always fair for child rapists. You said once that every 40 year old man wishes to have sex with children. No, Roman… they do NOT.

    Moreover, it’s become quite well established that an incident of child molestation or rape is almost never an isolated, one-time only event. More than likely, you’ve done this to God-only knows how many other children over the years. Certainly, your statement that you only did what all men wish to do doesn’t show much remorse on your part. I don’t know what the judge did or did not promise you 30 years ago. But I think the parents of Europe should be comforted knowing that every night you spend confined to your luxury Swiss chalet is one more night they need not worry about you spending time with their underaged daughters.

    • Jiri, find out what the judge did, or did not promise. And if there were any more offences throughout the years…do you, Jiri, think they would stay silent? especially now? Consider Tiger Woods’ scenerio…
      The deed…of course, wrong. But this whole publicity thing is orchestrated. (I just hope you are aware).

  86. I hope that this child rapist serves his sentence in full. It’s unfortunate that the SCOTUS struck down the death penalty for villains like this.

  87. In the United States a 13 year old girl can not give permission for sex. It is rape, if he had paid her it would be rape, if she ask him to have sex with her it would be rape. He is a rapist, child molester, and should serve his time in prison with added time for fleeing the country. Sympathy for him is not an option.

  88. Be a man Polanski. You took advantage of a 13 year old. She’s a child. Enjoy prison, there will plenty to attend to your backside needs.

  89. Polanski, you should have come back and served the rest of your time if, for no other reason, the 42 days you served was not justice for drugging and raping a young girl. Had you done that you would have been out a long time ago with a great career directing any project of your choosing waiting for you. People would have forgiven you. Maybe not everyone – but most people, considering the death of your wife and unborn child, would forgive you.

    But you ran away for 30 years, never expressed any real remorse, and now you’re whining about injustice. You did this to yourself.

  90. He druged and raped a 13 year old girl and then ran from justice when he found out he might get more than a slap on the wrist. Shame on him STILL.

  91. You may not be remaining silent, but the only words that could matter are the ones you must utter in legal proceedings. Otherwise, your words fall on deaf, callous ears.

    If you have a case, prove it in court. Until then, nobody cares what you have to say — but we do care about justice. Raping girls not acceptable.

  92. The relevant quote for your situation is “Never complain. Never explain” (Attributed to Henry Ford II after being arrested for drunk driving) Here you have both complained and explained. Big mistake.

  93. Well, thanks for that, Roman. Now, how about you apologize for raping a girl and admit that you violated another human being out of sheer selfishness and disregard for another person’s life? Because nothing you say has any merit whatsoever until you say it.

    But, it’s all about how unfair the world is to YOU, isn’t it? Seventy something years old, and you still don’t have a clue about your hypocrisy.

  94. Hey, Roman,

    Why not just go back to the states and serve the sentence that you were lawfully convicted of. I’m sure you’ll like being the loved one of Spike and Bubba. As you deserve.

  95. quel crapule! what a little prick this guy is!

    si le juge a mal agi, il faut faire un autre procès et non pas laisser impuni un homme qui viole les petites filles

    if the judge acted badly, let’s have another trial, not let a criminal go free!

    that is how it is usually done. except in this guy’s head.

  96. Polanski, if you thought “I can now remain silent no longer!”, was going to garner some sympathy or a groundswell of indignation on your behalf, you have miscalculated abysmally.

    You sir, are the worst kind of disease on the planet, a person who exploited a child for sexual gratification. Ever the coward, you even had to drug the child to carry out your disgusting acts.

    You are no martyr, you have not been wronged. You are an animal.

    Quit barking. Return to silence.

  97. Polanski acted like an a-hole on the night in question, and anybody who says otherwise is smoking something evil. But the hysteria of those who now scream “child rape” brings to mind the lynch mob in some old Western movie trying to tear down the jail and just hang the bastard without bothering with a trial.

    It is not true that Polanski is trying to get away with that crime, as some imply. He was already prosecuted, the case was settled by the Los Angeles court system, and then the court system discredited itself by reneging on a deal that had been worked out with the cooperation of the family of the offended party. So the court system has no moral leg to stand on.

    Which would still leave us with the interests of the offended party, of course. As some here may not be aware, a substantial monetary settlement has been reached with that offended party, who has repeatedly asked that this matter be dropped.

    The issue isn’t whether Polanski should be given a pass on the basis of what a great artist he is, the answer to that is a definite “No!” The issue is whether there is any legitimate basis on which to retry this case given the unethical conduct of the court system on the first go-round, the restitution Polanski has performed, the clearly stated wishes of the offended party, and the very long time during which the Los Angeles authorities have expressed no interest in the matter. The answer to that is also “No!”

  98. He STILL had sex with a child who was drugged and given alcohol, and I don’t care what your culture says, that is wrong. He should be glad that he got away and shut up. There is no rehabilitating a child molester’s image, and anyone who thinks that he should be allowed to do so is every bit as morally bankrupt as Polanski.

  99. I can remain silent no longer, except about mentioning that i plied a child with drugs and alcohol!

    I can remain silent no longer, that a few months in prison for that crime is shameful in a civilized society.

    I can remain silent no longer, because i am in danger of running out of champaign in my house, i mean mansion, arrest, and that is just cruel and unusual…

    Tell me folks, if this was just Ronald Polanski, plumber, would you guys care so much?

  100. Mr. Polanski should return to the United States and face his charges like a man. If he is as innocent as he claims, he should have no trouble clearing his name.

  101. A preference for underage girls can be attributed to an undersized jonas. The necessity to drug and liquor them into submission shows that the pleasure and the pressure was all yours.

    What a pitiful character you have, not even worthy of filming..

  102. It was rape and she was (quite) underage. Do the crime, do the time.

    In theory, our laws apply equally without regard to wealth or position. Now, pooor Roman is upset he was handed the same sort of stiff sentence any other schmoo would get for drugging and raping an underage girl.

    Worse, you’re a fugitive from justice. That alone is worth many more years in the slammer.

    There is nothing you’ve done in your life that excuses your crimes. Nothing.

    Go back to jail. I hope they lose the key.

  103. He must be broke. Why else would he write this? One other thing, where was this little girls father. Most fathers who love their daughters know how to take care of little runt like this. They also wouldn’t let them go for a photo shoot with dirty old man.

  104. “All that remained was for the court to confirm this agreement, but the judge decided to repudiate it”

    Which means the rest of the letter is just whining and excuses. Judges are not bound by deals between prosecutors and criminals. In fact, their duty requires they ignore such deals if the proposed punishment does not fit the crime.

    One thing completely missing is any sign of remorse for such a heinous crime.

  105. Wah Wah Wah

    Man-up, you plead guilty, you ran out of the country. WWII was a long time ago too, they are still chasing NAZIs.

  106. There must be some doubt in your mind that you are truly right or you would have no problem coming back to put an end to this matter. You are afraid and not a man. A man will stand up to his accusers and demand justice. You knew you were going back to prison because there were probably other circumstances you are leaving out and that is why you will not appear in the US. Sissy.

  107. …and I can remain silent no longer because Mr. Polanski mentioned not one word of regret for his choice to rape and drug a child. Disgusting.

  108. The US have indeed a double agenda, you cannot give a sentence and later change it later. This is just a witch hunt, and better if the « prey » has a progressive mind, and is European. The US legal system is not corrupt? What a joke! What do you think a bunch of rednecks jury would decide after all the media attention, at libertarian Euro criminal trying to escape their holy country? And Switzerland is playing a disgusting role is all of this. If mr. Polanski already did jail time, if justice has made errors and contraditory decisions, if the victim asked to let the case rest, if more than 30 years have passed, let it rest.
    Free Polanski!

  109. There is never an excuse to abuse a child. Be a man now after all those years and finally face justice. If you could look into a tiny girl’s eyes and go on doing what you did, perhaps you can go on now too and face your judges’ eyes…

    But I doubt it…

  110. I think it is silly to punish an old man for things which a younger version of him did 33 years, especially when we consider that the girl in question, now a woman, does not wish him punished and in view of the fact that the DA of that time has testified in Polanski’s favor. He has behaved decently for 33 years and that is what counts.

    Ultimately we do have to decide, is the US penal system for revenge or for “correction”?

    Too many posting here seem to think that revenge is the main reason for punishment. But that goes against the entire philosophy of the penal system.

  111. The levels of hostility visible in various comments, here and all over the forums into which people pour their frustrations, seem to reflect little interest in caution, but rather, a propensity for condescension and power-tripping.
    Roman Polanski’s letter is a very considered and intelligent reflection on his current state – why is it that so many should be hostile to him? He is certainly not a threat, and furthermore, he is trapped.
    The reasons for the hostility seem to have much more to do with the self-congratulatory mindset of our Anglo-Saxon cultures, and their love for public humiliation – American authors such as Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote about this in a cautionary fashion, but his words ring with ironic irrelevancy in an age when most Americans no longer read.
    At no point in this process is Mr. Polanski running from his responsibilities, and the complexities of his case are towering – yet, fools on all sides go-on vomiting their superior bile, passing bitter judgments on a matter which by all evidence is really a matter for legal experts to resolve.
    Why is it then, that so many people (many of which remember little or nothing of the case) are intent in condemning Mr. Polanski in the court of public opinion? Perhaps it is precisely because they want to tip the balance beyond what the facts, in all their minutia, mandate and merit – perhaps all the hatred exists precisely because “we don’t do nuance” as G.W. Bush proudly stated, about us – his people. Nuance tends to reveal the complex nature of both sides in morality plays – things are rarely as they seem, and the trouble with the superficiality of modern America, and its imitators, is that the fear of complexity is actually a denial of the weakness of the ground on which we all stand.
    America would do well to learn nuance…
    Attacking Mr. Polanski when he is powerless is akin to shooting a fish in a barrel and this says infinitely more about the personality of the shooters than about the man in question.
    I pray that Mr. Polanski can stay out of the court of sensation, gratuitous vindictiveness on the part of 3rd party gawkers, and other morally superior pundits… I pray that people merely read his words and make the simple effort of understanding them.

  112. Nowhere can I read that Roman Polanski denies the fact. He simply states – among a lot of other things- that he served the time originally sentenced upon him.
    Regardless of anyones personal opinion there is no point in calling him names for the abuse. If you find that the original sentence wasn’t enough then please vote for a party in your country that will try and change that.

  113. Enough is enough. The little girl she was has forgiven mr.Polanski. The case is over, now. Let him free for now and forever. Let him do the work he wants to do, because nobody has any advantage to put mr.polanski in jail. He ha suffered enough.
    C.Anneese

  114. @ arawn eibhlyb It’s really not about what would be a fair sentence. We’re not judges in that case. What matters is the fact that the man who _was_ the judge in that case said that a 42 day long sentence would be all, and then went back on his own word, wishing to sentence Polanski the second time for the same crime. The role of judges is to judge crimes, the role of democratic societies is to keep their judges from misusing their position. If we confuse the roles we’ll end up with both corruption and lynch mobs.

    Panie Romanie, wszystkiego najlepszego dla Pana i rodziny!

  115. The decision to leave the US 32 years ago was a big mistake in the first place.

    And it’s a big mistake now, to fight the extradition.

    Just go back and fight and deal with it.
    Don’t be a sissy!

    Dr. M.
    http://phdguy.com/

  116. ‘Magnitude of his crime’? He slept with a minor, nothing more. That’s a moral issue the US always had a mega problem with in their so sexually repressed land of no hope let alone glory, where they punish men for sex and send them into hell to get raped by inmates and guards alike, their lives destroyed forever. If it had been rape they’d gone for a trial; no trial, no rape let alone sodomy the medical evidence entirely discredits in both cases. Ten years is folly, not even forcible rape gets that. The law then said one year minimum for unlawful sex, and Rittenband wanted to have him inside for the three months he used as punishment under the ‘diagnostic study’, the probation officers then cut short, and everybody, including the attorneys and Geimer herself along with her mother demanded no further time inside. Rittenband then threatened him with unlawful self-deportation, and that’s why he fled. Polanski has a perfect right to decry that Cooley and his henchmen are after his blood with lies, not any justice

  117. At times like this, I am reminded of George Orwell’s thoughts about Salvador Dali:

    If Shakespeare returned to the earth to-morrow, and if it were found that his favourite recreation was raping little girls in railway carriages, we should not tell him to go ahead with it on the ground that he might write another KING LEAR.

  118. I guess we use liar to describe Polanski now, along with child-rapist and child-drugger. Why don’t you do the right thing and kill yourself Roman.

  119. Yup, Polanski is being skewered for GHOST WRITER without a doubt. And as anonymous wrote, sex laws in the U.S. — and laws related to anything sexual, like family law — are a major farce. Just check out a website called http://www.ncpforce.com, and you will see how crazy the laws in the United States are. And just how corrupt their judges are. Read it, and you will be shocked.

  120. Enough is enough. Free Polanski now!

    arawn eibhlyn and wpkatz, you are fools and don’t know what you’re talking about.

    • yes, free poor, victimized Polanski! All he did was drug and rape a little girl!!!!! Living for 30 years like a king in europe, where they don’t care about child molesters walking around freely, is punishment enough!

  121. Wow. Amazing stuff here. First off, she was both vaginally and anally penetrated after having been drugged. The medical evidence clearly demonstrate this. I can never quite understand why so many who argue for Polanski in this matter have such little grasp of the facts of the case.

    Why are so many defending a jerk who raped a 13 year old girl anyway?

    • Search for the blog “interested participant” look at the women with troubles segments and check out the sentences that many of them receive. America’s desire to waste resources on this “high profile” case is in direct contrast to the US desire to do justice when it is a favored gender or person. I for one don’t defend Polanski in spite of his deeds, I defend him because the US courts are VERY hypocritical when it comes to fair and impartial application of the law. How else can one view a system whereby a woman rapes a boy repeatedly for years and gets probation, yet here, millions of doallars are being wasted on a case in which: 1) Time was already served 2) everyone, even the victim say the case should be closed and 3) where the victim has already said that rehashing this over and over is doing more damage? It is politics plain and simple. Justice, has never been a part of this.

    • because the only reason this is an issue today, is so that a politician can get “herd” support for his election. All those who fail to see THAT be the dominant factor in this circus, is a monkey in a cage. No different.

  122. Don’t worry Roman, I’m sure you will find the inmates of a US prison more than happy to introduce you to the little shop of horrors you visited on that young girl and dismiss with much aplomb. They are quite good at this type of thing, better than you I expect, as they won’t need to ply you with ludes and booze. I’d advise you stay relaxed, tensing up is only going to make it hurt more. Enjoy!

  123. Besides, the medical findings, available on smokinggun, discredit ‘anal rape’ and forcible rape entirely. He didn’t rape her or anyone else; there’s no such thing a ‘one-time rapist’, and she had later said in interviews, and I quote: “He had sex with me, he wasn’t forceful or hurting me or mean or anything.” That doesn’t sound like rape.

    She was 13 years old and told him repeatedly “No”, “Please stop”. She was afraid of him, because she was alone in the house with him, and she was dependent upon him for her ride home.

    He performed cunnilingus without her consent, then penetrated her with his penis. After determining that she wasn’t on the pill, he proceeded to have anal intercourse with her without her consent.

    If that doesn’t sound like rape to you then I suggest you move up from the sixteenth century.

    Please provide the link to the medical transcripts that you cite. I couldn’t find any such thing on the Smoking Gun (and I looked), but I didn’t find the transcript where she describes exactly what took place. It was rape, plain and simple.

    Polanski is, by her testimony, a child predator. He chose to leave the country rather than serve time in prison. If you think 45 days is sufficient sentence for a child predator who raped a 13 year old girl, then I suggest you have some female offspring and offer them up to service your non-rapist paramours.

    Or get your head out of your ass and admit the truth. Polanski raped a 13 year old girl.

  124. Mr. Polanski you ask to be able to live in freedom in your native land.

    Well you can, just get your native land straightened out.

    And if you want to go back to the US you can as well, just be prepared to face the music that you have avoided for 30 years.

  125. No means no! Even for Roman Polanski! Rape is a crime because a rape victim NEVER recovers from the incident. Rape is a crime and 112 days in detention is hardly a sentence. Mr. Polanski is a sex offender and should register as such in the United States and be adjudicated for his crimes to the fullest extent of the law!

    The D.A. of Los Angeles needs publicity? That is the final insult! D.A. Cooley is a serious well-known crime fighter who has been re-elected again and again because he is TOUGH ON CRIME!

    You broke the law Mr. Polanski and you took something away from Samantha Geimer that she can never reclaim. It is called HER INNOCENCE! In the eyes of the law that make you A CRIMINAL! No matter how much you want to manipulate Ms. Geimer, the LAW IS CLEAR!

    Justice is coming your way and rather than try to attack the credibility of the District Attorney, why don’t you take a good look in the mirror and wait for the monster to stare back at you. Because that is what you are!

  126. You people who are supporting this rapist should be ashamed of yourselves. I can’t wait to see him carted away to prison. He should consider himself lucky because if it had been MY daughter he’d have been dead years ago.

  127. Oh, please…… you are old enough to accept responsibility for your actions and to know the world isn’t subjectively fair. Stay where you are or come back and face the music like the man you once thought you were.

  128. I also agree with Mr. Pistelok. 42 days for sodomizing a 13-year old girl after giving her drugs and alcohol. It was a travesty of justice to begin with! Any man in the US accused of -not even proven to- molesting a minor is immediately arrested (unless he is a catholic priest, of course). I can hardly believe Mr. Polanski is still trying to defend himself. He has no shame.

  129. It should be noted that there were additional aggravating circumstances. This was no accident. He lured the young girl away from her parents with a story about taking photographs for Vogue magazine, exploited the employer/employee relationship, plied her with alcohol and drugs, and then attacked her in a friend’s hot tub and bedroom when she was vulnerable.

  130. I also don’t want to visit USA. They think they have right to voyeur my private life. I will feel myself a sexual slave there.

  131. America doesn’t have democracy. In North Korea it is easy to be imprisoned for forbidden literature. In US they imprison everyone who have nude child photos. So what is the difference. Watching photos is not crime. It’s just state censorship. No freedom in US. Discrimination which lets homosexuals and zoofiles enjoy their sexual life, but makes pedophiles enemies of the state.

    People don’t understand that they are told what they should do in their life. Cause US cares of their citizens private and sexual life.

    • what a bunch of nonsense. Where do you come up with this sort of stuff?

    • I’m not sure anathema if you were directing that comment to HUH or to Sandra, but I don’t think that accusation is called for.

      I don’t believe that, for anyone who actually understands the paraphilia disorder defined in the APA’s DSM4 would ever defend that pedophilia. Point out one person who has.

  132. I think the only thing that remains for you to decide, Roman Polanski, is if you plan on going to your death denying the magnitude of your crime and trying to make excuses. The longer you do, the more you insure that you are not remembered as a director, but a pedophile.

  133. Mr. Polanski gave a 13 year old girl a sedative and alcohol. Whether the girl then allowed him to have sex with her is irrelevant. She was not capable of giving consent, first because she was under the age of consent and second because she had been drugged. These crimes would likely be dealt with much more harshly today than it was 30+ years ago. I can’t think of any jurisdiction (in the US, EU or elsewhere) where Mr. Polanski’s activities would not be a crime.

    Mr. Polanski’s claims of judicial misconduct should be made in court in the United States. Mr. Polanaski wants to have his cake and eat it too – he wants to argue that he was subject to gross injustice in court while not being in jeopardy if he does not prevail. The court has rightly refused to hear Mr. Polanski’s claims since he is a fugitive and refuses to subject himself to the court’s justice.

    • One thing I never figured out is where the sedative came from. I believe it’s realistic enough that he provided the alcohol, but I am not sure, couldn’t she have brought those drugs? What are both people’s testimony on the source of origin, I would like to know, like if there is consensus about that.

      A tiny bit of wine would not make it impossible to consent, it doesn’t seem clear just how much she drank.

    • Monsieur Polanski, ce texte est long, mais je ne vois pas une chose: que ça, ce que vous avez fait il y a 33 ans, a été méchant! Vous écrivez “la victime”. Aucun sentiment. Comme si une autre personne faisait ce que vous avez fait! Comment puis-je croire que vous êtes une personne meilleure qu’avant si vous seulement accusez? Je voudrais être content que Roman Polanski vient du même pays comme moi (Pologne), mais maintenant j’ai seulement honte.

    • What about raping a 13 year old? Do you think serving a few weeks in jail for that is sufficient punishment?

    • No, not if he actually raped her. Sandra, the crime Polanski is claiming to have served time for is not rape, but rather ‘unlawful sex with a minor’. He’s not claiming that the time served would be sufficient for rape, he disputes and never plead guilty nor was ever convicted of rape.

  134. Polanski detention in Switzerland is first of all the kidnapping of Polish citizen and the citizen of the European Union and is legally false. The sex laws of the United States violate the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union and cannot be enforce in any form including extradition and in any part of them by any member of the European Union neither by the country seeking the accession like Switzerland. They violate the article 1st of the Charter on human dignity defining the forbidden voluntary sexual activities of adults like oral and anal sex and the article 21st forbidding adults any sex without signing the marriage license.

    The code of the State of Utah says for example: 76-7-104. Fornication. (1) Any unmarried person who shall voluntarily engage in sexual intercourse with another is guilty of fornication. (2) Fornication is a class B misdemeanor. 76-5-403. Sodomy — … (1) A person commits sodomy when the actor engages in any sexual act with a person who is 14 years of age or older involving the genitals of one person and mouth or anus of another person, regardless of the sex of either participant. …. (3) Sodomy is a class B misdemeanor. 76-3-204. Misdemeanor conviction — Term of imprisonment. A person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor may be sentenced to imprisonment as follows: (1) In the case of a class A misdemeanor, for a term not exceeding one year; (2) In the case of a class B misdemeanor, for a term not exceeding six months; (3) In the case of a class C misdemeanor, for a term not exceeding 90 days.

    • Switzerland has an extradition treaty with the US when a crime has been committed in the US that is also a crime in Switzerland. There was an international arrest warrant out for Polanski, and the Swiss arrested and held him based on the treaty.

      Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl in the state of California. A 13 year old child cannot legally give consent to have sex. He was charged with seven felonies, and was only given a lenient plea deal because of his celebrity. He failed to adhere to his side of the plea deal, and he has been a fugitive for more than 30 years.

      It’s time for Polanski to return to the US and pay for his crimes.
      It’s time for Polanski to pay the piper.

    • Julie, I have no idea why you said that, AKW did not infer at all that rape is legal. Nor did anonymous in case you mistakenly responded to them.

    • No legal woes that Polanski encountered are as bad as what he did to that 13 year old girl. And as long as he does not serve sufficiently in jail for it there is no justice. No amount of legal bla bla bla will take away the fact that he had sex with a child and was never really punished for it. No amount of self pity that Polanski displays will take away the fact that he got away with rape. And frankly it is beyond me how Europeans don’t give two figs about the abuse of a minor. Children in Europe don’t seem to have a voice. Or is it the fact that he raped an american child? Would you be more upset if he raped a French child?

    • Sandra, have a glass of water and sit down for a moment. You’re putting a lot of energy into something you don’t really understand…or you do, but at the grassroots level. Look, this whole thing isn’t about whether Mr. Polanski did or did not rape the girl. HE ADMITTED TO IT by pleading GUILTY you see. This is about the courts changing their mind after the hammer has been slammed. You know, there is a very good reason why that hammer is there. It is to signify the ultimate decision. So when people scream justice!!! etc., they’re missing the real point. Do you get it now?

      (I would be surprised if you knew her name – in a live conversation).

  135. He was inside for 42 at Chino plus 70 days on Swiss remand, which have to be counted towards any sentence. Besides, the medical findings, available on smokinggun, discredit ‘anal rape’ and forcible rape entirely. He didn’t rape her or anyone else; there’s no such thing a ‘one-time rapist’, and she had later said in interviews, and I quote: “He had sex with me, he wasn’t forceful or hurting me or mean or anything.” That doesn’t sound like rape.

    The prosecution had no case of rape from the start, that’s why they didn’t have a trial and handed him the plea bargain on the mother’s pressure, the media-obsessed judge then rescinded on against all counsel. All her claims have never been impugned in a proper cross-examination and therefore are NOT proven fact. THAT’s the facts, and Polanski has a perfect right to defend himself against such lies the LA courts have given the Swiss.

    • He gave drugs and alcohol to a girl whom he knew was only 13 years old. He has admitted it. He has also admitted that he had sex with her after he had her drugged and drunk. She says he raped her orally, vaginally and anally. Investigators found his semen all over her underwear. He was charged with seven felonies and plead guilty to one on the condition that he be evaluated in a prison psychiatric facility for 90 days and come back before the court for sentencing. He was released from the psychiatric facility after 42 days and immediately went overseas and was photographed drinking at a festival with several young girls. When he returned to the US, he found out that the judge knew about his escapade overseas and was considering putting him back in jail. Polanski KNEW that the deal was not final until he showed up in court for his sentencing, yet he fled the country because he was afraid the judge was going to make him finish his 90 days. The man is a rapist and a coward.

    • AKW you declare he is a rapist, yet he did not plead guilty to rape, he was not convicted of it. Where is the evidence that she was drunk? You can have a tiny bit of alcohol without being drunk. Furthermore, where is the evidence of druggedness?

    • He sure does have the right to defend himself. And, the best place place to do that? In court. Anyone who sees this as anything but rape is delusional.

    • Sex with an 13 year old drugged girl is per definition rape. A girl that age is too young to give consent. So it IS rape. It is astonishing how the abuse of such a young person continues to be justified. So much for moral values. Of course the prosecution had a case. He had drugged and had sex and admitted to having sex with a 13 year old. I assume Europe does not protect its children from the likes of Mr Polanski. Very sad.

    • Right on, Marshal ! Have you noticed the ever-present sandra has added her ignorant comments to others’ bullshit but cannot fathom what to say when confronted with THE FACTS which you so clearly explain.

      Note to sandra the BS queen commentator, puhleaaaase see the documentary “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired”.

      As the Newsweek critic justly said in June 2008 : “This deft and subtle film is a fitting tribute to a man—like him or not—whose life deserves more than tabloid headlines.” Source : http://www.newsweek.com/id/138382

    • ah yes, the Documentary. The last (and only) resort that Polanski’s supporters turn to in an effort to reinstall him back on his pedestal. You may note however that much- MUCH of that “filmmaking” (and by filmmaking I mean unequivocal biased propaganda) has been discredited. I’ll leave you to do some research, though I know full well that you won’t. Your illusions are just too important for you. So, never you mind now, Polanski is a hero who will save the world, and no one can ever take that away from you.

    • Thank you, Marshal.
      See people…these are facts. Not things you heard in your mind, but facts. Stop jumping on the bandwagon and projecting your feelings on rape, where people get really hurt; beaten, tortured, terrorized, threatened to be killed, often time killed indeed. Rape is rape you may say, but consider the weight and implications of those words vs. and I quote: “He had sex with me, he wasn’t forceful or hurting me or mean or anything.”

      and yes, that is verbatim

      Just saying.

    • Ah, Bart. This is desperate. Did she say “I wanted it”? or “It was OK, I told him yes”? No, she was simply saying that he “wasn’t forceful or mean.” (Because, you don’t have to be when you’ve drugged someone into submission.” This is what a 13 year-old would say. Or a girl that has been taught not to makes waves, or is trying to find the good in someone who took advantage of her. BTW, you’ll see this a lot with young victims who had established even a shallow level of trust with their perpetrators. It’s a way they can understand what happened to them, that the person isn’t really “mean,” that the world is OK and bad things don’t happen.

  136. I believe myself that main reason that Roman Polanski is being kept under Swiss/USA arrest is his latest movie “The Ghost Writer”, which clearly shows what is going on in politics of GB and USA today and who actually is at power in those countries. And this is a very inconvenient truth and a very sad information for democracy.

    • oh please. The reason the rapist Polanski is being stalked is because he fled the country when it became clear he had to serve more than a few weeks for raping a 13 year old. The ghost writer is good entertainment but nothing earth shattering.

  137. According to public information M. Polanski remained in jail for 42 days! Does he himself or anybody else believe that this would be a fair penalty for anally raping a 13 year old girl? M. Polanski seems to have no reason to consider himself treated unfairly.

    • I agree with Mr. Pistelok. Mr. Polanski’s statement is a pathetic attempt to deny the magnitude of his crime (raping a minor) & continue to avoid justice. I’m not sure of the average sentences for such crimes in the U.S., but ten years in general population sounds about right to me. I admire Mr. Polanski’s talent as a filmmaker but have absolutely no sympathy for a man who has never expressed genuine remorse for his actions.

Laisser un commentaire

*