This is the thread where the fringster comes back with teeth

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Having a high visibility child rapist on the lam for three decades is not a good thing for the rule of law.

True. I tend toward going after the guy full bore because of the nature of the crime and the fact that he pled and fled. On the other hand, I can see the point that some may not consider this worth pursuing given the time that has passed, etc. (though the time passed because he was on the lam).

However, I find the view of some (including the French government) that he should be left alone because he made good movies and had a rough life particularly galling (pardon the pun).

He should just face the music and get it over with. The crazy judge who supposedly scared him away took a dirt nap long ago.

Oh, and hi everybody. Long time no see.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

And yet I agreed with you, which suggests you haven't figured out what we disagree about.

Cute - the other possibility is that you realized how idiotic it is to defend "the status quo ante"

Are you sure you don't want to be the board apologist for raping children, at least until Spanky shows up?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by dtb

She looks like she's trying to pull up her pants after taking a leak.

Disagree. Look at her hand. The thumb is pushing down. There would be more gripping with the fingers if she were pulling up.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally Posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand

However, I find the view of some (including the French government) that he should be left alone because he made good movies and had a rough life particularly galling (pardon the pun).

2. Yeah, this argument is particularly stupid and I hate when people trot it out as if it has any relevance whatsoever. He committed a crime.

Did Michael Vick get special treatment because he was a good football player?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

There is a documentary about this and I recall thinking after watching it that I would have fled the country if I were facing a judge doing what this judge did. The prosecutor said the same thing.

Here is a review from the movie. Apparently the victim (and perhaps less surprisingly the NYT reviewer) also thought it unsurprising that he fled the country given the circumstances.

http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/movies/31roma.html

It's a good movie. I recommend it. I am sure my recommendation coupled with my stated feeling that I would also have feld the country under the circumstances will be construed as an endorsement by me of child sodomy, or perhaps seen as a reflection of my view that high-living French artistes should not have to be burdened with the banalities of our judicial system.

[Fugee]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Here is a review from the movie. Apparently the victim (and perhaps less surprisingly the NYT reviewer) also thought it unsurprising that he fled the country given the circumstances.

http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/movies/31roma.html

It's a good movie. I recommend it. I am sure my recommendation coupled with my stated feeling that I would also have feld the country under the circumstances will be construed as an endorsement by me of child sodomy, or perhaps seen as a reflection of my view that high-living French artistes should not have to be burdened with the banalities of our judicial system.

Give me the Cliff Notes version because I doubt I'll watch it. What did the judge do that was bad? Did the movie say what the "typical" sentence for child rape (not just statutory rape) was at the time? Was the problem the judge was going to give him a harsher sentence than other defendants charged with similar crimes got or that the judge wasn't going to go along with the deal he worked out with the prosecutor?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Fugee

Give me the Cliff Notes version because I doubt I'll watch it. What did the judge do that was bad?

This is as close as the review comes to saying:

Mr. Polanski’s guilt isn’t in doubt, arguments about the age of consent notwithstanding. In March 1977, he was arrested at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel and charged with raping the girl at the home of his friend, Jack Nicholson, the star of his film “Chinatown.” (Mr. Nicholson was away.) He was released on $2,500 bail and eventually indicted on six felony charges, including child molestation and sodomy. In August, after agreeing to a plea bargain, he pleaded guilty to one felony count of illegal sex with a 13-year-old girl. Her family’s lawyer, Lawrence Silver, told the judge that his clients were not seeking a prison term for Mr. Polanski, only an admission of wrongdoing and rehabilitation. By Feb. 1, 1978, Mr. Polanski had fled.

As Ms. Zenovich forcefully explains — using talking-head interviews, a wealth of archival material and generous clips from Mr. Polanski’s films, including “Rosemary’s Baby” and “Chinatown” — he had every reason to run. The story of what happened between the initial charges and his flight has been sketchily told before, including by his victim, Samantha Geimer, who in 2003 wrote a commentary for The Los Angeles Times in which she stated that she believed that he and his most recent film at the time, “The Pianist,” should be honored on their own merits. She added, “Who wouldn’t think about running when facing a 50-year sentence from a judge who was clearly more interested in his own reputation than a fair judgment or even the well-being of the victim?”

“Wanted and Desired” answers Ms. Geimer’s bombshell question with shocks of its own, notably corroborating interviews from Douglas Dalton, Mr. Polanski’s lawyer, and Roger Gunson, the assistant district attorney who led the prosecution. Together these two former opponents pin the blame for Polanski’s flight directly on the presiding judge, Laurence J. Rittenband (who stepped down in 1989 and died in 1994). Aided and abetted by an avalanche of fluidly organized visual material, the lawyers fill in the appalling details of what was effectively a second crime, one largely perpetrated by a celebrity-dazzled judge and the equally gaga news media he courted. This crime left two victims, Mr. Polanski, who was denied a fair trial, and Ms. Geimer, who was denied justice. As she wrote, “Sometimes I feel like we both got a life sentence.”

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Fugee

Give me the Cliff Notes version because I doubt I'll watch it. What did the judge do that was bad? Did the movie say what the "typical" sentence for child rape (not just statutory rape) was at the time? Was the problem the judge was going to give him a harsher sentence than other defendants charged with similar crimes got or that the judge wasn't going to go along with the deal he worked out with the prosecutor?

they worked out a plea deal, so the girl would not need to testify. the plea would hav egiven him probation- no jail time- the Judge didn't think that was right.

those are the facts- then the movie has subjective opinion about whether it made sense for the guy to run given how "unreasonable" the judge behaved.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This is as close as the review comes to saying:

he pled, or wanted to- so where was the failure to "get a fair trial?"

and how the fuck does one rape an intoxicated 13 year old, and plea to probation? I don't know how screwed the judge was- but the prosecutor wasn't exactly making decisions that seem too sound either.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Fugee

Give me the Cliff Notes version because I doubt I'll watch it. What did the judge do that was bad? Did the movie say what the "typical" sentence for child rape (not just statutory rape) was at the time? Was the problem the judge was going to give him a harsher sentence than other defendants charged with similar crimes got or that the judge wasn't going to go along with the deal he worked out with the prosecutor?

Unfortunately, I cannot recall the details. I just recall the judge being a megalomaniacal publicity whore who arguably was not competent for the bench. I did not get the sense that he was stepping in to correct the error of a rich, high-publicity director getting off with a slap on the wrist. I am familiar with many cases where a judge will decide that a plea agreement is too lenient and, generally speaking, I think that is just one of the risks you take when you commit crimes. I do not recall feeling that way about the judge's conduct in this case.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

they worked out a plea deal, so the girl would not need to testify. the plea would hav egiven him probation- no jail time- the Judge didn't think that was right.

those are the facts- then the movie has subjective opinion about whether it made sense for the guy to run given how "unreasonable" the judge behaved.

Actually, those are not the facts, but I understand that these sorts of subtleties have no place when we wave our giant flags of righteous indignation.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I am familiar with many cases where a judge will decide that a plea agreement is too lenient and, generally speaking, I think that is just one of the risks you take when you commit crimes.

And yet Bank of America could not flee to its ski lodge in Gstaad and pursue a career in directing, despite the fact that corporations are nominally entitled to all of the protections we afford natural persons. Where is the outrage?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This is as close as the review comes to saying:

Here's another critique of the movie: http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/200...ary/index.html

and the Grand Jury testimony from the victim:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...skicover1.html

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Here's another critique of the movie: http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/200...ary/index.html

and the Grand Jury testimony from the victim:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...skicover1.html

and another article from Salon - http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/...est/index.html

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

he pled, or wanted to- so where was the failure to "get a fair trial?"

and how the fuck does one rape an intoxicated 13 year old, and plea to probation? I don't know how screwed the judge was- but the prosecutor wasn't exactly making decisions that seem too sound either.

It was hollywood in the 70s. Do you think you could find 12 jurors who would convict on conduct involving drug use and sex? 75% of them would probably have said been there, done that.