This is the thread where the fringster comes back with teeth

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Understood, but if the theory is he pleaded guilty because he knew he wouldn't get a fair trial then it seems odd that the deal to which he agreed with the prosecution seemed to be as lax as it was. Although maybe at the time 90 days psych eval. for 6 sex and drug related felonies was considered hard time.

I'm not sure that's the theory. He may not have perceived what was going on with the judge until after the plea. But I don't know.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Someone (AG?) suggested he could have withdrawn the guilty plea. Had he done so, he might have felt that he wasn't going to get a fair trail. The "fair trial" language was the NYT reviewer's not mine. I quoted from the NYT review, which PLF posted the link to, to answer Fugee's question about what it said. This was probably clear to everyone else, but apparently not you.

I don't think there is any question about what should happen if Polanski is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. I just question the wisdom of efforts to make that happen.

you make my brain hurt.

a bunch o' lawyers are chatting about whether this guy was right to run, and whether it's good he might finally be caught. you say, or quote, someone saying "he would not have gotten a fair trial." I ask what are you talking about, so you say it again. now you're falling back to being a simple quote-meister? you really weren't pushing "no fair trial" as being of some interest somehow?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This is an interview 10 years after he fled. Look at the sequence that starts at 1:35.

Based on that alone, the idea that "no one was hurt" and that he couldn't figure out what he did wrong, after he admitted what he did to her, I would put him in the meanest maximum security lockup around.

If this is American prudish morality, so be it. Thems his own words, and they hang him.

I assume you are posting this in response to me because you believe my recommendation of the documentary coupled with my statement that I came away from the movie feeling that, under the circumstances, I also would have fled too constitutes an endorsement by me of child sodomy. I predicted this would happen.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I just question the wisdom of efforts to make that happen.

Why?

Is this a cost issue for you? A justice issue? Why do you question the wisdom of extradicting a confessed rapist on the lam?

I don't see this one at all. You're going to have to explain it slowly.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

I was just thinking to myself about how much I love Polanski's work (Chinatown is my favorite movie) and how it seems that I tend to like the work of people who are total assholes. Picasso (asshole) is my favorite artist, Wagner (anti-semitic asshole) composed my favorite opera and Polanski directed my favorite movie. If I like an artist or an actor or athlete for what they do professionally, chances are they are assholes in their personal life.

Maybe there are just a lot of successful assholes.

name your 3 fav posters.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not sure that's the theory. He may not have perceived what was going on with the judge until after the plea. But I don't know.

I don't think that is the theory. I think, but cannot recall for certain, that when he accepted the plea agreement, he was not so concerned about the judge, but later the judge began acting extremely erratically and Polanski then knew that the judge would neither accept the plea agreement nor give him a fair trial after he had rejected the agreement.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I assume you are posting this in response to me because you believe my recommendation of the documentary coupled with my statement that I came away from the movie feeling that, under the circumstances, I also would have fled too constitutes an endorsement by me of child sodomy. I predicted this would happen.

No, not at all. I was posting something I thought might have made you "feel" differently.

Sometimes, we look at different clips produced by different people and they make us feel very differently about the same thing. It's amazing. I really can't figure out how it happens.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

Picasso (asshole)

Jonathan Richman is going to have words with you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Why?

Is this a cost issue for you? A justice issue? Why do you question the wisdom of extradicting a confessed rapist on the lam?

I don't see this one at all. You're going to have to explain it slowly.

Because -- notwithstanding the benefits to extraditing him, noted above -- I think the prosecutors could be doing other things with the same resources that would do more to protect the public, and because the victim says the media shitstorm is making her miserable. And perhaps because it's hurting us abroad, but that is a pretty minor thing. Oh, and also because I think that there is a decent chance that the attempt to extradite him will be unsuccessful, mean that we'll bear all those costs for no return.

[cheval de frise]

Originally Posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand

Oh, and hi everybody. Long time no see.

Welcome back, Mr. Hand. I'm sorry to report that Mr. Bill is temporarily unavailable (pending extradition). For now, "Hank" is fulfilling his function.

Cheers,

CDF

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

Maybe there are just a lot of successful assholes.

Maybe? The selfishness and singularity of vision required to create anything resonant, or succeed at the highest levels of any competitive endeavor, all but dictate the top of the pyramid will be filled with assholes. To write the Ring? Christ, imagine how much effort that must have taken? Only a dick could ever allot himself the time to create something like that. One would need to be served by all those around him and give little, if anything, in return to concentrate enough to pull that off. Hence, we celebrate the rare "non-dickhead" Hollywood stars or business moguls like Paul Newman or Warren Buffett above all others.

You've surely had that moment where you could have stuck the knife in somebody for professional gain and didn't. To your credit, of course. The more I've worked, the more I realize that playing nice and being decent helps to a certain point, but that if you really want to jump to the very top, you have to do a number of sociopathic things to break through those final few barriers. Ayn Rand doesn't sell a lot of books on the quality of her prose. Her message describes what we are pretty well.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Because -- notwithstanding the benefits to extraditing him, noted above -- I think the prosecutors could be doing other things with the same resources that would do more to protect the public, and because the victim says the media shitstorm is making her miserable. And perhaps because it's hurting us abroad, but that is a pretty minor thing. Oh, and also because I think that there is a decent chance that the attempt to extradite him will be unsuccessful, mean that we'll bear all those costs for no return.

Ok, so it sounds like mostly a mix of cost and victim issues.

They've been playing cat and mouse for years, running up costs and using resources - I don't think law enforcement likes to have a high-visibility poster child for bail jumping out there, and suspect most DAs would very happily chase the guy.

Setting aside the original crime and the idea that there is some point to punishing someone who rapes a 13 year old multiple times - just ignoring that - I would still prosecute a bail jumper, even thirty years later.

I am also disturbed that some of your argument revolves around the fact that he is a high profile guy who will spend money and use resources - that line of argument suggests that favorable treatment for the wealthy and famous might be appropriate, just because it's a pain in the neck to prosecute them.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

No, not at all. I was posting something I thought might have made you "feel" differently.

Sometimes, we look at different clips produced by different people and they make us feel very differently about the same thing. It's amazing. I really can't figure out how it happens.

I see. Perhaps I was not clear, but my "feeling" after watching the movie that, under similar circumstances, I also would have fled, was not based on my belief that Polanski did was O.K. In fact, so the record is clear, I am just going to come right out and state that I believe that drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl is very, very wrong. In fact, I believe that drugging and vaginally raping 13 year old girl is very, very wrong. Further, I will state that there is no appreciable doubt in my mind that Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, and the fact that the girl was thurst upon him by a warped stage mother and the fact that it happened in a jacuzzi and not in an alley do not even come close to being mitigating factors in my mind. And thus, perhaps if I were in Polanski's situation, I should have had the moral courage to stay a face the music, no matter how unjust the outcome would be, because I had done a bad thing and therefore I should allow bad things to happen to me. But, in truth, based on the conduct of the judge as described in the documentary, I recall feeling that, instead of staying, I would have fled.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Vile, no doubt. But it doesn't take away my simple point about GGG misquoting the piece. Whether I was conned? Well, that's another matter.

Perhaps I should have posted the link and let it speak for itself.

But I think you misread rather than me misquoting.

I found that interview chilling. You seem to actually find him somewhat convincing.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I see. Perhaps I was not clear, but my "feeling" after watching the movie that, under similar circumstances, I also would have fled, was not based on my belief that Polanski did was O.K. In fact, so the record is clear, I am just going to come right out and state that I believe that drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl is very, very wrong. In fact, I believe that drugging and vaginally raping 13 year old girl is very, very wrong. Further, I will state that there is no appreciable doubt in my mind that Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, and the fact that the girl was thurst upon him by a warped stage mother and the fact that it happened in a jacuzzi and not in an alley do not even come close to being mitigating factors in my mind. And thus, perhaps if I were in Polanski's situation, I should have had the moral courage to stay a face the music, no matter how unjust the outcome would be, because I had done a bad thing and therefore I should allow bad things to happen to me. But, in truth, based on the conduct of the judge as described in the documentary, I recall feeling that, instead of staying, I would have fled.

Thank you. You have convinced me that this judge was an idiot when he let Polanski go abroad to finish his film. You have also convinced me that you believe drugging and raping (both vaginally and anally) a 13 year old girl to be wrong and would not do it.

But now Ty is going to have to convince me that this idiot judge who was so lenient in letting him go abroad was a conniving bastard of a hanging judge out for Polanski's ass. How will I reconcile these sides of the same judge?