Smoking Gun has the transcript of her testimony, reading that and the facts leaves me wondering, why are all the Hollywood peeps fighting for Roman! Whoopie even said it wasn't rape, but the fact remains, she was. Only the fear of subjecting a young Samantha to the process, saved his ass...
Roman's life, the concentration camp and his parents deaths there, murder of his wife, et al. is some sad shyte mon...
Samantha"s managed to put this behind her, crazy!
Too bad people don't read fact before opening their pie holes... Good Post Hal! rated

Sadly, the issue no longer is about the rape. Polanski pleaded guilty and a plea bargain was made and accepted by all parties and the judge. Time was served even though all parties and psychiatrists recommended probation only. Including the prosecuting attorney and Samantha's family. The judge was notoriously media crazy and started working illegally behind the scenes. When both lawyers refused to go along with the judge's charade, and it was a charade, it became clear that the judge's plan was to not live up to the agreed plea bargain and punish Polanski and all lawyers (including the prosecuting attorney) by sentencing Polanski and then keeping him in prison far longer than any agreement. Possibly up to 50 years. Polanski left the country, not to avoid his sentence, but because the law had been corrupted and was being broken by the judge himself. He was told by his own lawyer that the judge could no longer be trusted. The prosecuting attorney agreed. Polanski did not break the law by running because there was no law functioning. Polanski served the agreed upon time. Then he became a pawn in the judge's illegal activities. His actions surrounding Samantha Geimer were dealt with, enacted and completed. He has now paid the price beyond any reasonable justice, not to mention his lawful sentence. Had the judge been following the rule of law, this would all be ancient history and all parties would be satisfied that justice had been served.

That could have and should have been addressed on appeal, Hal. Polanski fled the country in violation of the law, after admitting to raping a minor.

While Geimer seems like a truly together person, and I do admire her composure, she doesn't get to decide what happens to Polanski. Crimes like that are not only committed against a particular victim, but against the agreed-upon norms of a particular society.

While I agree to a point, Polanski was told that the appeal process in this matter would most likely take an unspecified number of years. Meanwhile, he would remain in prison. And while the punishment for Polanski is not in the victim's hands, it is in the hands of the attorneys' and judge's decision and agreement. If you look at exactly what happened here, the law fell apart and what would have happened to Polanski and what WAS happening to Polanski, was unlawful. He ran from a system that had fallen apart. His sentencing would have been illegal, but if he had stayed, he would have faced many years behind bars that, had the system been functioning properly and the judge not breaking the law, would never have taken place. Polanski and the lawyers on both sides were being manipulated and played with by the judge. When the law falls apart, I expect no man or woman to allow themselves to be unlawfully punished, penalized, or worse. Polanski, as a sexual offender of an underage girl, would have been in true danger behind bars. Not to mention unlawfully imprisoned. While I do not condone his conduct regarding Samantha Geimer, he did the prison time the judge asked him to do; the time the judge agreed he would do. Polanski stuck to the law and took responsibility. It was the judge who broke the law here, not Polanski. What Polanski did was self-preservation. I would have done the same. Once again, even the prosecuting attorney has gone on record as stating that he does not blame Polanski for running as the judge was in breach of the law and asking others to break the law with him. He was not to be trusted. If there is no justice in the law, then there is no law to be broken. Again, not supporting Polanski's crime of having sex with an underage girl, but I do support his leaving the country. One has to separate the crimes.

Polanski committed a much hated person-on-person crime. People who say that they think Polanski shouldn't be locked up for life have unpopular opinions - no more, no less - but they are being told by many OS posters that they too should be locked up and "ass-raped" for those opinions.

Well, I don't know who is saying those people should be "ass-raped', as you put it. However, life in prison is not an appropriate sentence for the crime. Not in America. We can't be a nation that punishes people based on our emotions. Polanski was ready to abide by the law and pay for his crime. It was the law in this instance that failed. It was the law that became the criminal in this case. Now that by no means takes away from the fact that Polanski committed a serious crime, but he ended up with a VERY corrupt judge who took the law into his own hands. And not because of what Polanski did, but for the judge's own personal gain. Polanksi paid for his crime under the original plea bargain. If he is to do more time, it should be within reason and be along the lines of what was agreed to all those years ago. I do not believe, however, that he should be punished for running. The law became the criminal here and Polanski was placed in a horrible situation that had nothing to do with the crime he committed. As strange as it may seem, the U.S. should apologize to Polanski for not allowing him a lawful trial. Then he should accept a sentence that takes into consideration who Polanski is today, not who he was in 1977. And the sentence should be no more severe than the plea bargain the judge and lawyers accepted. This is all assuming that we want to live in a country that believes in the rule of law and will do anything to not let that law be corrupted. Otherwise, the law is a mockery and will be used for personal gain. Then we will no longer be the land of the free. People must separate Polanski's crime from the law's crime. Just because Polanski was guilty, doesn't mean we have the right to do what we want to him. That's why we have laws. Laws are there to protect both the innocent and the guilty. It must always be seen through the eyes of a humanitarian, not a lynch mob. The law is not a vehicle for vengeance.

Hal - I'm gonna have to let this topic go soon, but what I was referring to were "ass rape" and life in prison comments left on other posts about this case. There have been 10 or so posts since he was arrested. If you search back through the previous posts you will find them.
I'm pretty much left thinking this:

Polanski committed a most hated crime – rape of a female minor.
People (Whoopi Goldberg, et al.) who say what they happen to THINK about Polanski or his child victim or the victim’s mother or the DA or the attorneys or the judge or the era and place in which the crime took place have unpopular opinions regarding the crime itself and also regarding this particular case- no more, no less.

If I want to rationalize, theorize, minimize, criticize, or in any other way apply mental abstraction to the subject of crimes, punishments and the justice system, I THINK I have the right to do so. If you THINK my opinions are obscene and offensive, which many do, you have the right to tell me I’m full of shit. You can suggest that until I’m a parent or a victim or a violent criminal myself that I don’t know what I’m talking or THINKING about and that I shouldn’t. Remember, I’m not a judge and have no influence on what will happen to anyone being sentenced for anything anywhere on the planet, and actually I’m thankful for that.

And when OS posters say that Polanski “apologists” should be locked up and "ass-raped" for their opinions (as a means to convince them otherwise), I remind myself that they are not judges, and I’m thankful for that.

Well, regardless of the opinions of others on the OS site, I welcome your opinions. I understand and sympathize with all aspects of this case and all sides. And so long as people are cordial and respectful and can articulate their thoughts and ideas in a constructive manner, I look forward to hearing them. You have done just that.

Samantha was paid off by Polanski. She was raped. Yes, Whoopie it was "rape, rape." And Whoopie, regardless of the different rules for how minors are regarded in Europe, in America, what he did was statutory rape.

The judge was not a party to the plea bargain worked out by the prosecutor and the defense attorney. He did not have to abide by it.

However the judge agreed to the deal. Polanski was given a very lenient sentence by the judge. He only had to do a psyche evaluation and probation. The judge even allowed him to leave the country to direct a film--he didn't have to do that.

When Polanski was out of the country, he was pictured with young girls partying at a bar. He thumbed his nose at the judge. The judge reversed his decision to allow the plea bargain--as was his right.

Polanski skipped his hearing. He has been a fugitive from the law for decades. He is a convicted child rapist. Who knows how many other young girls he has violated while he has been a fugitive from the law? He should do the time for the crime he committed. It makes no matter that he is a talented director--he should be held accountable. Given the Jaycee Dugard abduction story. He picked a bad time to taunt the LA district attorney with the widely publicized acceptance of his lifetime achievement award in Switzerland.

I'm afraid your information is slightly distorted. The photo that was taken was at Oktoberfest where producer DeLaurentis took Polanski insisting he had to experience it. The photo was taken by an amateur and was not in any way Polanski thumbing his nose at the judge or anyone else. If you see the photo, it is in no way offensive. And the women were not underage. They were adults. And they were not "with" Polanski.

And while the judge decided to reverse his agreement to the plea bargain, he insisted that the attorneys put on a mock trial pretending to not know the outcome. He said that he would sentence Polanski and, if Polanski signed an agreement not to appeal deportation, he would have Polanski deported after he completed his 90 day sentence. He told the attorneys that if they did not agree to pretend in the courtroom that the decision had not already been made and falsely argue, he would not deport Polanski but keep him in jail indefinitely. This is by every definition, illegal. Both attorneys refused to go along with this and eventually got the judge to step down. They also told Polanski that the judge could no longer be trusted and that there was a good chance he could get the max sentence of 50 years, not because of the crime he committed, but because the attorneys refused to break the law for the judge. And even if they had gone along with this, they still felt the judge could not be trusted to keep his word. The judge also spoke of the case outside of court bragging that he was gonna trick the lawyers and put "that little Polock away. "

You can be angry with what Polanski did, most of us are, European attitudes or not. But the law failed us here. And it failed him. There was not going to be justice. For anyone. When the law breaks down and the lawmakers become criminals, one has to act in his or her own best interest. Just like when cops plant drugs or arrest people for crimes they didn't commit. Or beat someone up using excessive force. It's illegal. Everyone has rights. Just because he committed a crime does not mean he has no rights in this country. As a result, both the victim and perpetrator have suffered far beyond the crime itself. Again, I understand the anger, but there are two issues at work here: the crime Polanski committed and the crime that was committed against him. Remember, even criminals have rights in America. I'll fight and argue to make sure that doesn't change.

As for Polanski raping other children, all psych reports concluded that he was mentally stable and not a sexual predator. He is now married and has two children. That does not in and of itself prove he has not been with young girls, but this act he committed in 1977 in no way suggests that he's out there in the world serial-raping children.

"DeLaurentis took Polanski insisting he had to experience it"

So it's DeLaurentis' fault that he was pictured partying at a bar with young girls of indeterminate age?" Whatever happened to personal responsibility. I guess that got lost when he drugged and brutally raped a 13 year old. That says a lot about his lack of character.

"the judge decided to reverse his agreement to the plea bargain"

The judge was not legally bound to honor any plea worked out by the prosecutor and defense attorney.

"he insisted that the attorneys put on a mock trial pretending to not know the outcome. He said that he would sentence Polanski and, if Polanski signed an agreement not to appeal deportation, he would have Polanski deported after he completed his 90 day sentence. He told the attorneys that if they did not agree to pretend in the courtroom that the decision had not already been made and falsely argue, he would not deport Polanski but keep him in jail indefinitely. This is by every definition, illegal. Both attorneys refused to go along with this and eventually got the judge to step down."

And this justifies Polanski skipping out on his sentencing how? All of that is irrelevant. He was bound by the law to report to court and he did not. He broke the law. The law did not break the law. The convolution of your conments or so illogical as to be laughable.

It's not up to you or Polanski or his attorney to decide that "There was not going to be justice." If there was some impropriety that could be proven--and you point to the fact that the judge was "forced to step down"--then Polanski should have let the law handle the matter. Instead, he chose to break the law. The law did not break the law.

Now the law has caught up with him and he has no choice but to prove his case in court as does everyone else who doesn't have his influential friends and resources.

"When the law breaks down and the lawmakers become criminals, one has to act in his or her own best interest." ...I'll fight and argue to make sure that doesn't change.

Since your such a crusader for justice, you must have been also as tireless in your defense of Michael Jackson when he was unjustly tried by an overzealous district attorney. Can you post the links to the passionate arguments you made on his behalf?

The difference between MJ and Polanski? You guessed it, he stayed and (pardon the pun) faced the music. He was acquitted.

The convolution of your comments are so illogical as to be laughable.

I'm sorry you see it that way. It seems to me your anger has blinded you somewhat to the facts. However, it's alright to disagree. You seem to think a photo of Polanski at Oktoberfest is somehow damning evidence. My point was not to place any blame on DeLaurentis, but to show that there was no blame to be placed anywhere. Polanski was not doing anything wrong!

And here's where we disagree: If the law says you should show up and be sentenced, but you already know that the judge is breaking the law and that your sentence won't be for the crime but for other reasons entirely, you have to make a decision. The attorneys told Polanski that it could take years to bring a case against a judge and then appeal Polanki's case. You feel that the judge breaking the law and bragging about what he was gonna do to Polanski and the attorneys as being beside the point. Irrelevant. I simply disagree. I would have run. Left the country. Done exactly what Polanski did. Sorry.

It sounds like you want to see the guy punished for the crime he committed to the girl, but have no interest in the simple fact that our justice system was showing him that there would be no justice, no fair trial, and the outcome could be years, possibly 50, in prison!

I'm sorry, Polanski, like MJ, paid the family damages, unlike Michael he pleaded guilty in court, and he did some time. More than Mr. Jackson.

If MJ was going to be railroaded and sentenced not for his crime but for something else entirely, I would expect him to run, too. Regardless of his crime.

You claim Polanski was bound by a law that was no longer functioning. That's where we differ. From where I stand, the law no longer exists if it's no longer interested in legal justice.

I would not remain in any country wherein my attorneys told me that I was to be illegally railroaded and could spend the rest of my life in prison for a crime that all parties involved --both attorneys, the victim and her family, both psych doctors appointed by the judge-- agreed should be probation with time already served. Polanski agreed to do time regardless. Until the judge broke the law (not once, but four times).

I'm sorry we're not going to agree on this. How do you feel about MJ walking away from the crime many believe he committed, not once but on several occasions with several different boys? And I'm afraid there is a difference between an overzealous attorney and a corrupt judge.

And to respond to your other comment, there is nothing illogical about what I'm saying. In fact, it's more logic than emotion, which seems to be be where you're coming from. The logic is sound, even if you don't like what it says or where it leads. This is not a black and white case. You're angry at Polanki, but seem to be fine with everything else that took place. I understand the emotions attached to this. Believe me, I do. But this is a very complex issue.

I don't see what my anger or lack thereof has anything to do with the cogent facts. As a matter of fact, I am not "blinded" by anger. I am only stating the facts. However, you are blind. Your emotional defense of this person, who is a convicted criminal, but who never served time in jail for his crimes, is proof of that.

The fact remains that Polanski was convicted of a crime and skipped out without facing the law as he was legally obliged to.

No matter what the victim feels after all these years, the law is what must be abided by instead. We can't let a child rapist, an admitted rapist, go free without due process. He fled. Now, he has to finally face the music. He pled guilty. He did it. Now, he must be punished. Perhaps it will be time served. Perhaps he will spend some time in prison. But someone who does something like this must be subject to the law. All the things you've been stating here are merely conjecture about the situation and the motivations of others at that particular time, and not really relevant to the situation as it now stands. The situation presently is that he pled guilty and then fled, and now he must face some sort of punishment. It's pretty simple.

As for commenters about ass-raping, etc. these were comments making a point, not actually calling for rape. 'Rape rape' indeed. Rape is indeed rape, if one is drugged, a child, and forced to have both vaginal and anal sex while begging to go home and while saying 'no' repeatedly. Whoopi was an idiot to make those remarks, and those admittedly hyperbolic remarks about her were meant, I'm pretty sure, I know mine were, to make the point that what happened was very, very bad and shouldn't be swept under the rug because someone is an artist. Whoopie would certainly want anyone who raped her or anyone in her family punished, no matter who did the crime. She's blinded by some supreme stupidity, frankly. Those comments bring that point home.

While I fully agree that Whoopie's comment was idiotic, I cannot agree, nor can I see, how the facts I stated are in any way irrelevant. I can't think of anything MORE relevant. As for conjecture, it's all documented. Everyone that was present except for the judge (who is dead) agree on each and every fact. Completely. However, your interpretation of events at Nicholson's house is, in fact, conjecture. Polanski's interpretation of events that night differ greatly from Samantha's. However, you take Samantha's word over Polanski's. Understandable. In fact, I do, too. I think the real truth probably lies somewhere in between the two, but we'll never know. So all we have is conjecture as no one else was there! That said, the one thing that can't be argued is that Polanski had sex with a 13 year old girl, who was not a virgin, admitted to having had sex with older men before, and had taken Quaaludes on several occasion before. But even with that, she was still 13 and no adult should take advantage of her, regardless of whether or not she gave him permission. Consensual or not, it was statutory rape. All this is true. And if the law had been followed by all involved, Polanski would have served his time agreed upon, paid his fines to the family, and been a free man 32 years ago. Again, I cannot and will not condemn a man who faced a life in prison for reasons other than the crime he committed. Sorry. The United States should sentence him in his absence and then ask him to appear to serve his time, whatever that may be. This is what the judge was going to do before the lawyers confronted him about going public with his illegal activities. And if he's not sentenced, then a deal should be struck. But what I see at the moment is a lynch mob disinterested in the crimes committed against Polanski and only interested in the crimes he committed. And like the judge that initially tried him, the media sadly can have great influence over such men and women. I would not have a lot of faith in that legal system if I was Polanski. The judge he had was media crazy. He went after high-profile celebrity cases. And he took this one to the extreme by asking the attorneys to put on a show. For the media! But people are SO angry about what Polanski did, that they can only see that. Once again, everyone wants to make it black and white and it is simply not. If we can't take responsibility for the crimes "we" committed, then I do not expect Polanski to trust in the American process of justice. I wouldn't.

And for those who believe Polanski should have been put away for life, then that is also emotion talking. That is not our justice system. And that's why we try so hard to pick the right juries and not put let the victims dole out sentencing. Nor do we allow a judge or juror who has a close emotional tie to the situation (direct or indirect) sit in that courtroom.

"That said, the one thing that can't be argued is that Polanski had sex with a 13 year old girl, who was not a virgin, admitted to having had sex with older men before, and had taken Quaaludes on several occasion before."

How desperate are you to bring this up? There's no lengths you won't go to in defending that scumbag is there. Look bad for you and the other hollywood high rollers who are coming to this child rapist's defense.

What next--did she perhaps have a truancy from school? You think maybe she gave Polanski a venereal disease, since she was sexually active? Maybe she supplied the Quaalude?

Blaming the victim will not make your case. It only makes you look like more of a scumbag.

"who is a convicted criminal, but who never served time in jail for his crimes"

He did serve time. According to the agreement made by the judge.

Again, my defense of Polanski isn't emotional. And it's not in defense of his crime of rape. Only in his "crime" of leaving the country which, under the circumstances, I do not see as a crime. He was about to be victimized. Abused. In a sense both emotionally and, most probably physically, raped. Regardless of what you feel his punishment should be, that was a clear failure of the justice system that would have very well destroyed and endangered his life. That is not what our justice system is supposed to be. And that is not emotional. It just isn't in sync with how you feel about it. I'm okay with how you feel. I even understand it. I just don't agree with it. I have very strong emotions involved with rape. I've had people close to me raped. Brutally. I also have very close people in my life who were taken advantage of sexually as kids. I'm one of them. And I still separate the two parts of this story because I believe strongly in the justice system when it's functioning. And I also know it can be deadly when it's not. I've seen that, too. It is the foundation of our country. We need to honor it. And take responsibility for it. That is how I feel. It is what I believe. You can call me any name in the book if you want, it won't change the fact that I see the situation differently from you. If some information comes along that is sound and makes sense to me, I will take that in. I have no interest in fighting for something I don't believe in. Nor do I have any interest in denial. But so far, I have not seen nor heard anything to make me feel or believe differently.

"If we can't take responsibility for the crimes "we" committed, then I do not expect Polanski to trust in the American process of justice. I wouldn't."

You are off the leash. You're a raving loony toons.

I'm sorry that you have resorted to name-calling. This conversation is finished as you do not seem to be able to conduct yourself in a civil manner. And I think I rest my case on the emotional reaction issue.

Don't be sorry. This was an interesting joust, until you attacked the victim.

Ha, ha, ha. Who's emotional now. Now, you've resorted to deleting comments. That's rich!

I'm amazed that the fact that the girl wasn't a virgin somehow makes, for you, doing what he admitted to doing better. It doesn't. Even a prostitute can be raped, you know. Or a wife. Anyone who is saying 'no' and who is forced to have sex has been raped. To suggest not being a virgin makes it better is a pretty awful stance. I hope you reconsider that.

And he pled guilty. So, he's guilty. He pled guilty to giving her drugs. He pled guilty to forcing her. He's even said himself that it was a bad thing to do. Yeah. It was. He's admitted guilt. I don't really understand why you want to believe he's innocent in the face of his own admissions. But that is, of course, your right.

As for the plea bargain, legally no one is obligated to continue with it, if they so choose. If the new judge changes his or her mind, no matter the reason, which is in fact mere conjecture at this point and not really on the record anywhere but was purely in the judge's mind, he or she can do that. Legalities are key here, and you're missing them for old gossip and speculation about what people were thinking at that particular time. It simply isn't admissible in court in that way. They can certainly discuss the plea bargain when he goes back to court, if the judge allows its admission. But what the previous judge was thinking, who the hell knows? Polanski is presently at the sentencing phase with a possible extra charge for fleeing. If he's lucky, that'll be dropped. If he's lucky, his lawyers will find a way to send him back to trial, actually. But my guess is that his guilty plea will stand.

You completely misunderstood what I said. My entire point was that it doesn't matter what people use as an excuse, he slept with a 13 year old girl and that's rape. No matter what else happened. And I've gone out of my way to state again and again that Polanski is guilty of rape. Both by his own admission and the simple facts of the case. Why you insist on believing that I think he is innocent is beyond my comprehension. There's not much more I can say on that if you're not going to read what I'm actually writing.

Going back on the plea bargain may have been the judge's right, but asking the attorneys' to pretend to state their cases after a decision has been made behind closed doors--not once, but twice-- is illegal. Speaking to the press and asking them what they think should happen is illegal. Talking about the case outside of the courtroom is illegal. Asking Polanski to agree to not appeal deportation--behind closed doors-- is illegal. Threatening the lawyers that if they don't go along with a mock public trial that you'll leave Polanski in prison is illegal. Illegal. Much of this is on record. The attorneys' statements, the reporter who was called into the judge's chambers. All of it. What I've stated ad nauseam and am growing weary of repeating is that there are 2 crimes here. Polanski's crime of statutory rape, for which I believe he should have gotten more time than the judge agreed to, and the judge's criminal activities which denied Polanski a fair trial. I will support ANYONE who is not allowed a fair trial. That's where we differ. If I was not allowed a fair trial, if I had a corrupt judge engaged in illegal activities at my expense, I would no longer have faith in the law or believe I would be treated like a human being. You have to separate the crimes here. Being guilty of rape does not give anyone the right to take away your rights.

If, again, you read this as me saying Polanski was innocent of his crime, then we're just going in circles. I can't reiterate my stance any more clearly here.

As long as we're conjecturing: If I take a wayback machine to 1977 and imagine that:
Polanski is doing photo shoots on adolescent boys for a French magazine. He contacts a 13 year old boy's mother who likes the idea. He takes the 13 year old to a nearby field and shoots pictures of him in his briefs. He returns him home and a few days later picks him up to take him to Jack Nicholson's house for more photo modelling. The mother wants to be present, Polanski says no, and the mother says OK. Polanski takes him to the house and rapes him exactly as he raped Samantha Geiner....

Well, I believe that, given the stigma, the boy would've been less likely to report the rape but - had he done so, public disgust would have been greater. Also, since 13 year old boys weren't as innocent, passive or worthy of protection as girls, the public would've been somewhat disgusted by the victim and the victim's mother as well.
P.S. - my conjecture doesn't prove anything, it's just conjecture

Hal_M:

I understand your parsing the two events: the original crime committed by Polanski and the crime you assert was committed by the judge against Polanski. Separating these is understandable.

However, you then seem to presume they cancel each other out. This is where I disagree.

Even if all were to agree that Polanski's flight from the U.S. in 1978 made sense in light of the miscarriage of justice feared, how does serve as an argument for him not returning to be treated within the letter of the law? Consider his flight his appeal. He won the appeal. The judge was out of order. Now he gets a chance at a fair trial.

Btw...there are a couple of things left out of your accounts.

1) Although Polanski agreed to pay Geimers a $500,000 settlement, reports this week show there is no evidence the amount was paid, and records show he was in default of payment. It is still not clear if he has paid.

2) David Wells, one of the prosecutors in the case, admitted this week that he lied to the filmmakers during the making of documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired to exaggerate the story. It may not mitigate the judge's actions overall, but it may certainly undermine Polanski's case.

3) Afar as Polanski's general views of his actions, I wonder if you're aware of the interview he gave with Martin Amis in 1979, a year following his flight from the U.S.

The interview appeared in Tatler magazine, and also appears in Amis's book "Visiting Mrs Nabokov".

It has nothing at all to do with the legal matters you have laid out, but it does give a chilling glimpse into Polanski's thoughts and actions. Read it and consider.

Polanski: "When I was being driven to the police station from the hotel, the car radio was already talking about it ... I couldn't believe ... I thought, you know, I was going to wake up from it. I realize[d], if I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal for the press, you see? But ... f - king, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f - k young girls. Juries want to f - k young girls- - everyone wants to f - k young girls!"

Thanks for your response. I certainly don't think one crime cancels the other out. What concerns me are several things.

1). Polanski was not given the opportunity for a fair trial. The judge was caught up in wanting to please the media. He was known for going out of his way to get celebrity cases. This was the basis for most of his illegal activities. If I were Polanski, I would be VERY concerned that, after what I had already experienced of the American justice system, that I would be subject to similar acts upon my return. Perhaps not as blatantly illegal, but certainly greatly effecting the outcome of any trial. Remember, when Sharon Tate was murdered, many members of the press and public openly speculated that Polanski had flown back from England himself, killed his pregnant wife and her friends, and then secretly flew back to London undetected. After the horrors of that incident, for ANY human being to go through that... And then to add the miscarriage of justice that was his trial on top of that... I'm not Polanski and I still don't know if I believe he would get a genuinely fair trial today. The media is currently a very powerful and influential tool. Often discarding facts and aiming directly for people's emotions instead of logic, reality, or fairness.

2). Wells was the district attorney and not the main prosecuting attorney. He's claiming he didn't council the judge or tell the judge what to do. Either way, it doesn't make much of a difference as it was one of the smaller transgressions by the judge. The judge still asked the attorneys to partake in a mock illegal trial, threatened to keep Polanski in jail if they didn't comply, ignored the plea bargain he had initially agreed to, ignored the requests by two psychiatrists (that the judge himself appointed) that Polanski receive probation with time already served, ignored the wishes of the victim, spoke to members of the press to find out how they thought he should sentence Polanski, etc. Being counciled by the district attorney is the least of the man's crimes and doesn't change the facts or situation at all. This judge had too many crimes on his hands for one less to make any difference. Especially this one as it's probably not uncommon for district attorneys to council judges even if it is frowned upon for anyone to influence the judge's decision-making process. Add to that the fact that Wells stuck to his claims in a 2008 interview with the NY Times. Now that Polanski has been apprehended, he is changing his tune. It is suspect. His actions at the time were not necessarily in Polanski's favor. He claimed that he was the one who showed the judge the photo of Polanski at Oktoberfest and convinced the judge that this was Polanski flipping off the judge, mocking him. If you saw the photo, there is no suggestion that this was anything of the sort.

3) As for the interview, I've never denied that Polanski having sex with a 13 year old girl was inappropriate. However, though he sees things through his own eyes, he may not be completely wrong. There are MANY men out there who prefer younger women. Maybe not 13, but Polanski also comes from a culture where the legal age of consent is 15 (France and Poland). The attitudes, right or wrong, are different. Hell, the legal age in Spain is 13! Scarily, the legal age in the Vatican State is 12! How's that for terrifying!? But I think the O.J. Simpson case showed us that the crime of murder (a double one at that) is somehow seen as less offensive in the over all public view. There are more emotions tied up with rape and men having sex with underage girls than there is with murder. For whatever reason.

Again, I'm not supporting Polanski's crime of sex with a minor, but we are also looking at a very different time in history. Thankfully, we've come a long way since then and are far more aware of these crimes today and their repercussions and the seriousness of the crime. Back then, there was more "leniency" about such things. It was speculated that the prosecuting attorney on the case was chosen because he was the only one at his firm who had NOT engaged in sex with a minor. True or not, it was a different time. So how do we prosecute Polanski now? I'm not saying we shouldn't, I'm just saying it's a VERY complicated issue. He should have been given a fair trial then. It was a different time and, in some ways, a different crime. And please don't take that wrong. I am not suggesting it was less serious nor that it should be taken as less serious. I'm just saying we have grown in many ways in 30 years. For example our understanding and tolerance of racism has changed. Certain attitudes back then were viewed through a different set of glasses. It's taken some time for us to see those actions today in a different light. But we still have a long way to go.

Today, Polanski is at the center of a lynch mob mentality. I see it here on this blog. And that's not you as your response was intelligent and thought-out and raises some very real questions. I truthfully don't know what the answer is here. I'm afraid Polanski will face the wrath of a puritanical nation more interested in vengeance than justice. And our media is even more out of control than it was back then. And it was awful then. But we look at what the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and so many others and how they are effecting so many people in this nation. Hell, we may not see health care reform as a result of the inquisition these guys are on and the reactive, intellectually incurious people they've convinced to take to the street en masse. Polanski, for whatever reason, has always been disliked and vilified by the American public. Suspected of horrendous crimes. Before he ever committed this crime.

He is now a man who has been married for many years and has two children. He has not been accused or suspected of raping or even sleeping with underage girls since this case. His life was dramatically altered by the misconducts of this case. And the victim, Samantha Geimer, now a very articulate 45 years old woman, has stated over and over again that she does not support Polanki being punished any further for his crime. This is not a 13 year old girl or her mother making that statement, but a 45 year old woman who, it appears, has worked through this and come out the other side a happy, healthy woman. She is married now with kids as well.

Again, I believe this case should be put to rest. And I think if the American public and the media wasn't so up in arms about it, it would be. I can't help but believe that because this is Roman Polanski and because this is America, that he will be treated differently than if he were just an unknown individual. The pressure to satisfy the mob who have no concern beyond vengeance and do not care one iota that there was another miscarriage of justice with farther reaching implications beyond the Polanski case is staggering. I don't have the solution, but I think there is reason for concern and it's important to recognize the unusual nature of this case and what happened 30-plus years ago and what is happening here today.

Polanski is not the only one out there who has reason to distrust the American media, public and justice system. The world watched us allow 2 terms of the Bush Administration and are now watching the mob mentality and overt and covert racism against Obama. They see the effects of these people and the media personalities who greatly effect them. And it appears this effect reaches to the highest levels. Joe Wilson and Congress, for example. There is good reason to suspect that this same mentality will reach into the courtroom on such a high-profile case. It is a real-world concern. Especially if you were the individual at the heart of it.

Hal -- you make some interesting points. I'd like to reply but just stepping out. I'll get back to you later :)

Thanks. Look forward to it. :)

There is no question Polanski is guilty. He has admitted it. The crime is a terrible one and has lasting consequences on any victim. The question is "will Polanski get a fair trial?" I would like to believe that everyone charged with a crime in America will get a fair trial. Unfortunately the IMAGE of the defendent has everything to do with his punishment. A wholesome, genial athlete that couldn't be imagined as a deranged murderer was released. (O.J. Simpson). An odd-looking foreigner with a creepy history (his wife killed in a nightmarish fashion, his family killed in death camps, creator of truly creepy horror films) was seen as being guilty of anything and everything back when he was originally charged. Some may think he doesn't deserve a fair trial. I don't want to return to the days of lynch mobs. America is only as good as its justice system. As the media ramps up for another ratings blitz, hoping Polanksi is sent back to the U.S. for a trial, I have very many serious doubts about justice being served.

Hal -- from your words, I'd guess that we're in agreement on most everything political. People like Joe Wilson and Glenn Beck scare the crap out of me. I'm from Canada so it would be impossible to say we voted the same, but I'm very liberal in my politics with a strong belief in social justice and fair-minded democracy.

However, on the Polanski case we disagree. I decry the prosecutorial misconduct in the handling of the case in 1977 and the despicable grandstanding of Rittenband – no argument there. But in regards to Polanski’s extradition, we see things differently.

To your points above:

1) The fact that Polanski didn’t get a fair trial 30 years ago, and believes he wouldn’t get a fair trial now, does not justify the case being dropped. If he had continued to evade authorities, then he’d have succeeded in rewriting the rules. But once apprehended as a fugitive, we don’t get to say, “Well, sorry, there’s likely going to be a media circus back there and a whole lot of people wanting to see you jailed, so we’ll let you go.”

Yes, there would be a lot of media attention. Maybe even the lynch mob you refer to. But Polanski doesn’t get a pass because of that. He’d hardly be the first to find himself in these circumstances --countless others have been there before. It’s one of those bargains you make with fame. When you’re famous and you find yourself charged with a heinous crime, it’s not very pretty. Even those who gained fame solely as a result of their crime, when it seems every person on the planet has devoured the details and formed opinions, have had to face these challenges. The legal system has had to find ways to address them. And it would again. It may not be 100% perfect, but these challenges do not serve as a reason not to bring this case to a legal close, the best way it can.

2) You are probably quite right that Wells’ transgressions will not make a lot of difference one way or the other.

3) You say “although he sees many things through his own eyes, he may not be completely wrong.” And you go on to talk about how many men prefer younger women and the young age of consent elsewhere. Hal – I don’t know where to begin on this one. Other countries condone child labour – it doesn’t make it right and we wouldn't for a moment accept it in North America.

And besides, it’s one thing to say the age of consent is, say, 15, and have a 15- and a 17-year-old having sex. It’s another when it’s a 13-year-old and 43-year-old.

So let’s not even go there. He was wrong. Period. Guilty. A creepy predator who’s apparently never been able to be attracted by women his own age. So let’s just jump to the part where you say you’re not supporting sex with a minor.

4) You then assert that the times were very different then, so “how do we prosecute Polanski now?”

That’s easy. The same way we would if a charge of molestation was brought against an individual 30 years after the fact. In California, this is entirely possible, and the defendant would have to stand and be judged against the values of today, not of those 30 years ago when the molestation was committed.

By fleeing the justice system, Polanski has effectively created the same set of circumstances. He’s avoided the full carrying out of justice till now, had an essentially free pass for 32 years, and has simply delayed things till a time when, unfortunately for him, people may take a harsher view of his actions than they did when the crime was committed. To me, it’s the price-tag of fleeing. I’m not saying it’s fair that he felt he had no option but to flee in the first place because of the dishonest actions of the judge, but this is the trade off for escaping. Not everything is fair. It wasn’t fair that Samantha Geimer was raped in the first place.

5) You say he has been married for many years with two children, and not been accused or suspected of raping or even sleeping with underage girls since this case. That has no bearing on his case. We can't confer 'good behaviour' as a fugitive as we would 'good behaviour' while serving a sentence. I'm glad if it's true he hasn't preyed on any other underage girls and hope it is (although Natasha Kinski was 15 when they began a romantic relationship). But even if he had been a stellar citizen while a fugitive, it does not convey an expiration date on the crime he committed. There are countless cases in which the defendants have be responsible for grave crimes but have lived otherwise ‘normal’ lives and have not re-offended. It does not relieve them of the responsibility of accounting for their criminal actions. Especially one of child molestation.

6) You say Geimer does not support Polanski being ‘punished any further.’ While I am sympathetic to her wish to avoid more media scrutiny, it is not her decision. She also accepted a settlement so her motives are not entirely clear. But the fact is, we do not bring criminals of serious crimes to justice as a representative of the victim. The prosecution represents the state, not the individual and the reason is clear. We must do it for all the other current and potential victims, and demonstrate that our society does take this dead seriously.

Bringing Polanski back to the U.S. to close this chapter legally isn’t to satisfy justice for Geimer. It’s to satisfy justice for every other present or future victim of rape, underage and otherwise.

Great comment. And I think we agree on more than you may suspect. I'm not necessarily promoting that all charges be dropped. What I'm saying is we have a responsibility to create a scenario in which we take responsibility for what happened and create a safe environment for Polanski to return and be sentenced. There are many who feel he already served the time as he went along with the judge's initial agreement to the plea bargain. And who feel that this was not allowed to end because the justice system failed, was corrupted and that changed the game by putting Polanski in a position where he felt fleeing was an act of self-preservation, not an act of avoiding due punishment or facing the legal consequences. It's not quite the same as someone getting away with a crime and just not getting caught for 32 years. Or being legally sentenced and then skipping town. It's different. And though many feel (not you) that his crime overrules his rights, it doesn't. We violated his rights. And that is regardless of his crime.

I believe, if the U.S. had owned up to its part in this and taken some responsibility for placing Polanski in this situation (and, no, he did not place himself in THIS particular situation), then he may have come back willingly. But we never once created a scenario where we recognized the large part we played in his fleeing the country. But we do have a chance to do that now. And to educate the public about it. The crazies will always yell and scream and hear no one. But the other folks who simply do not know the story behind what happened will recognize that this is not black and white and that we, our justice system, placed someone in a precarious place because our justice system went rogue (to quote Sarah Palin :)).

I would like to see Polanski be able to move past this. And America as well. It would be great if we could bring him back here and have him face sentencing and take into account our role in this case still remaining open all these years later.

And this is my own personal feeling and has nothing to do with the law, but I feel like the guy has paid a price beyond what he might have faced if he'd done some more prison time. That's just me. I think being exiled from the country where he was most happy, the American film industry he had become such a great part of and was a large part of his dream, not being able to travel freely, being seen as a guy who ran from his sentencing without most knowing the facts... None of this has any weight in court. Nor should it. It's just my personal feeling.

As for dating Nastassia Kinsky, well, it was legal, but yeah, the guy does have a thing for younger women. Who knows, maybe it was being a kid trying to survive in the Warsaw Ghetto while his young mother was gassed in a concentration camp. We can all speculate on the psychology. He probably has a better sense of it than we do. None of it excuses sex with a 13 year old. At least not in a country where it is illegal. However, if he'd been in Spain... Again, I don't share Polanski's attraction to girls that young, and it seems now that he's older, he's no longer going after women quite so young. But there are just different ways of looking at sex and sexuality. And not just in countries that condone child labour. We're talking civilized European countries. I lived in Sweden for quite some time and the legal age there is 15. That's shocking here. But not there. And not in many European countries. There is a different attitude, a different education regarding sex. It seems really hard for a lot of Americans to process and understand, but not everyone views sex the same way we do. And there's no right or wrong in my opinion. It's just very, very different.

As for having a relationship with a 15 year old, while it's not something I can see myself doing, I refuse to condemn it. I've seen a whole lot of horrible, unstable relationships between adults of the same age. Really dysfunctional, destructive stuff. I've also witnessed men and women finding themselves involved with partners VERY young who end up working. Who actually connect, have fun, enjoy one another's company and end up living long lives together. Charlie Chaplin and Oona O'Neil, as one celebrity example. But I see it in everyday life as well. And I saw it in Sweden. Again, I'm not in any way condoning or excusing Polanski's case with Samantha Geimer, I'm just saying we can't judge legal relationships just because we don't understand them or personally find them somehow repellent. Again, I recognize this is grossly unpopular, but as I get older, I find myself becoming less judgmental of the choices of others. Especially when I see people who are happy and end up in long-term loving relationships that seemed ridiculous to me at first. I learned that my insights are not always right or better.

And while none of the above is relevant to Samantha Geimer, it is to Nastassja Kinski. We're just not in a position to make those kinds of judgments. At least not fairly and accurately.

While those are my personal feelings, I hope a way is found to bring this Polanski case to a close with all parties satisfied that proper and fair justice is served. Regardless of what the public might think.

I think you’re right we agree on more than I first thought.

Had the U.S. authorities addressed the prosecutorial misconduct earlier, and had they made it safer for Polanski to return, he may have been open to returning and addressing it.

Or maybe not. The certainty of life lived free within the French borders may have been far more convincing to Polanski than the uncertainty of the American government apologizing and promising to deal with him fairly.

We’ll never know that. However, it would be nice to know if he is willing to do it now.

I think much of why I am unwilling to see that the ‘guy has paid a price’ is because I do believe the original deal struck with Polanski – had it been kept -- was too lenient for the crime committed. That’s my personal view. A lot of factors combined at the time to let him off quite easy with the original deal. It’s evident in comments made in the probation report and it’s what you referred to in your comments about the times back then.

Now, I do admire your non-judgmental approach to other relationships. I’m not being flip when I say I wish I could be less judgmental when faced with relationships with 30-year differences. I can’t help but think there are dynamics at play that are suspect or unhealthy. Is it my business to make these judgments? Nope. Granted. And, of course, there are legions of unhealthy same-age relationships. And historically, large age gaps were standard. I suppose it's my North American liberal feminist discomfort :)

But back to Polanski and Geimer. There certainly wasn’t a relationship of any kind between them. Polanski exploited his position as a famous director, and a young girl's dreamy-eyed hopes and need to be important, to act on his sexual impulses -- even if it meant ignoring his victim’s requests to stop as well as his victim’s vulnerable age. ie he raped her.

So, if by believing "the case should be put to rest" you don't mean it should be dropped, but instead ask the hard questions --

"What setting and conditions need to be established so this chapter can be fairly, and justly, closed? --

then we agree.

We do agree.

It's taken me a while to start to be less judgmental of large age-difference relationships. And it's mostly from finding myself proven wrong or discovering that the issues present for me were not present in the relationships themselves.

And where Geimer is concerned, even if she hadn't protested and the entire act had been consensual, it still would have been a crime AND been wrong/rape. She was a 13 year old American girl. She was not culturally prepared for this, no less in any other way. It was still an adult taking advantage of a kid.

I've been following this discussion all along. Very interesting, and I'm glad to see everyone keeping it so civil. Good points all around.

Thanks, Jeanette. There was only one person whose comments I had to start deleting as they were becoming extremely abusive. She is still represented here up to the point where she could not refrain from outright attacks. Other than that, everyone has been great on what is a very emotional issue.

Well, the Swiss have pledged to deliver a decision regarding Polanski's release or extradition this week. Either way, the response across the ether should make for interesting watching. Thanks for the post Hal and interesting discussion.

Hal - interesting reading an entirely different interpretation of the events surrounding Polanski's treatment leading up to this flight from the U.S.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-02/the-lost-polanski-transcripts/full/

Interesting, indeed. Unfortunately (and I say that in all earnestness as I was hoping more light to be shed on this) Marcia Clark gets some very basic facts wrong here. Which I find very surprising. One of the most obvious ones being the photo of Polanski at Oktoberfest. First off, he did NOT have his arms around either of the women in the photo. Secondly, neither of those women were Nastasja Kinski and neither of them were underage. She's mixing up her facts and dates rather dramatically here. And painting a completely false picture of Polanski and events.

Clark is also commenting only on what was said in court and the issues here are what were said and agreed to in the judge's chambers and the mock arguments the judge asked the attorneys to participate in; the first they agreed to, the second they refused.

As for the 90 days Polanski was granted to work on the film, according to both attorneys, the judge said that he would issue the 90 days to appease the press and that the attorneys should then continue to ask for 90 days and he would continue to grant them up to one year. The 90 days was so that the press didn't get on his case for allowing Polanski 1 year right off the bat. It was for appearance sake. It was after the district attorney showed the judge the picture of Polanski at Oktoberfest and claimed Polanski was basically sending a "fuck-you" to the judge, that the judge went back on his previous promise to extend Polanski's freedom in 90 day increments up to one year.

Plus, she states that the judge sentenced Polanski to 42 days psychiatric evaluation. He did not. He sentenced Polanski to 90 days, of which only 42 was served.

Plus, Polanski's guilty plea and much of the transcripts from which she states her case are all BEFORE the illegal wrongdoings and behind-closed-doors dealings demanded by the judge.

"In other words, Polanski had figured he’d get out of court with no time at all. Instead, he was ordered to report to prison for diagnostic on December 19, 1977. The lawyers, interviewed after the hearing, said they didn’t think Polanski would have to do any more time after the diagnostic. But there’s no question that the transcript show that no such promise was ever made in court, which is the only thing that counts."

Unfortunately, Clark, in making her assessment here, leaves out so much crucial information as to fill another of her crime novels. She chooses not to mention that the judge had asked the attorneys to go into court and pretend for this very sentencing for diagnostic. In her own words, she's only interested in what was said in the courtroom. She doesn't seem to care that what was said here was prepared ahead of time by the judge and basically handed to the attorneys. On the promise that Polanski would be sentenced to probation with time already served after having served the 90 days. The evaluation was completed, however, in 42 days and Polanski was released.

The judge insisted Polanski complete the remaining days. And that's when he told the attorneys that he would sentence Polanski to a time that would appease the press and then deport Polanski once the remainder of the 90 days had been completed. But ONLY if the lawyers agreed to state their cases in a mock trial for the sake of the press and public. And no one would know that Polanski was to be deported instead of serving his "full" sentence. Polanski was also asked to sign a paper waiving his rights to appeal the deportation. Since the lawyers refused to go into court and engage in another mock trial (they realized this had gotten WAY out of hand), and the judge had threatened them that if they didn't, then Polanski's sentencing would be "undetermined", the attorneys chose to tell Polanski what was going on. I'm surprised Clark doesn't mind that the judge was breaking the law to appease the press and playing with a man's life to do so.

I wish Clark, who is no dummy, had either been more truthful here or done a bit more homework. I don't know if she combined details, moved the order of events around or left out crucial information to sway things in the direction she'd like to see them go, or simply drew conclusions based on limited information. I hope more comes to light on this. Whatever the truth may be. Because ultimately, at the end of the day, that's all I'm interested in.

Hal - again, you raise some interesting points.

Just wondering -- does your info come from the HBO doc released last year? I'm not challenging, just wondering. I saw the film when it first aired and my recollection of the facts are hazier. But if everything you say is true, there's more to it.

Clark had another interesting post on The Daily Beast -- but I'm guessing you'll find many holes there too :)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-30/polanskis-lost-alibi/

My initial interest was piqued by that doc when I first saw it so I started looking around the internet, reading what I could, finding interviews with the lawyers, etc. Documentaries are great, and I thought this was a good one, but they, too, usually have a point of view and a story they want to tell so you have to take 'em all with a grain of salt. That said, I didn't really find any comments poking holes in the film's logic or statements. Doesn't mean there aren't any out there. And in my searching to see what else was being said and claimed and what other versions of the story might be out there, most everything I found seemed to back up the majority of what is in the film, including Samantha Geimer's own comments over the years. So again, I'm open and ready to hear something that suggest those aren't the events or that shows there was no wrong-doing on the part of the judge and that the law wasn't actually broken and that Polanski ran from what was a proper and lawful trial, but I haven't found anything substantiating that. Quite the opposite, in fact. I was hoping Clark's article was gonna show me something I hadn't seen before. But when she got the story behind the photo wrong... Well, that wasn't a good start. I'll read the other article you sent me. Maybe there's something in there.

Thanks.

Thank you for posting this, Hal. It seems that there are an awful lot of vengeful people out there and it's telling that his victim is NOT one of them. The legalities do matter, and they are conveniently being overlooked in this witch hunt.

Thanks, Emma. Good to hear from you. Yeah, it's been a slippery slope commenting on this, as you can see. Luckily, there have been some others interested in the truth and not just their emotional responses to this. And this is a subject matter that is very personal for so many people. It's often hard to separate.

FiredForNow: QUOTE Bringing Polanski back to the U.S. to close this chapter legally isn’t to satisfy justice for Geimer. It’s to satisfy justice for every other present or future victim of rape, underage and otherwise. QUOTE

This sends chills up my spine. The idea that prosecuting Polanski again isn't about what happened to the victim but an object lesson/example to others is not justice in any interpretation of the word. It's the opposite of justice; it's a cynical political act of vengeance that has proven popular in these right-wing times where critical thinking has been suspended in favour of mob rule/mentality.

The old legal adage that "Justice must not only be done, it must be seen and heard to be done" does not include making pariahs of people in 30-year-old cases to satisfy a need for vengeance. It is also interesting to me that Polanski has not only visited Switzerland to attend events dozens of times, he even owns property there. Theoretically, arresting him could have been achieved a long time ago. So why now? The documentary obviously stirred up some sympathy for Polanski, made the Calif. legal system look inept, and presto, he's arrested. I don't believe in those kind of coincidences.

I meant to say: I don't believe that is a coincidence.

There has been a lot of open speculation that Switzerland chose to do this now because their Swiss bank UBS is involved in an ongoing tax-evasion investigation with U.S. legal authorities. This move has been seen as Switzerland trying to earn leniency with the U.S.

"Jean Ziegler, a former Socialist politician and author who advises the United Nations on human rights issues, called the arrest a "political action... The government is so traumatized by the IRS and whole UBS scandal," said Ziegler, a frequent critic of the U.S. government and Swiss banks. "If any American authority asks for anything in Switzerland, they get it in 24 hours.""

Of course, this is just speculation and may not be the case. Many also believe it is just Switzerland trying to change their image as a haven for fugitives and tax evaders. That would mean, of course, that they would no longer be a neutral country.

"In 2002, [Switzerland] finally joined the United Nations and has been forced to tighten its venerated banking secrecy laws after a series of international flaps over dictator cash, Jews who couldn't access their Holocaust-era accounts and, most recently, wealthy Americans who stashed billions of dollars in UBS.

"It has become a world leader in returning potentate money, sending back hundreds of millions in Swiss accounts linked to dictators, including the late Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines. And reforms — prompted by foreign pressure — have made it much harder to open up confidential accounts from abroad...

"Polanski's friends and lawyers note that he has spent long periods of time at a chalet he owns in the luxury resort of Gstaad, and he was in Switzerland for an extended period this summer.

"Asked why Polanski was not apprehended then, Balmer said the question was irrelevant.

"Last week, we received precise information when and where he would arrive, enabling us to make the arrest. That was the first time," he told the AP. He would not comment further on previous contacts with U.S. justice officials."

Emma - I don't think my reasons for prosecuting a 30-year-old case with a felon who has escaped the jurisdiction at time of sentencing is about vengeance. My motives certainly aren't vengeful. In fact, I cringe when I see comments saying Polanski should rot in jail, or calling for his death and other such irrational reactionary nonsense.

If Polanski were to return to the U.S., the law applied, and the State decide to dismiss the case, that would be fine with me.

My issue is that I do not believe justice has been done, let alone seen to be done. Certainly, there seems to have been misconduct in the legal process. But in my eyes that doesn't give Polanski a free pass.

And in my eyes, the crime was very serious. Yes, Hal's right -- it's an emotional issue. And for me, it's a personal issue, but I won't go into that.

I consider myself to be a rational individual who can parse the different issues, and the facts, and my vote is for Polanski to return to the U.S. and address this through legal means.

Emma - p.s. yes, I'm sure you're right that the timing is not a coincidence. But that's alright with me. There are always conflicting demands on state resources which is why I guess they didn't pursue this rigorously before. I can't speak to exactly why there wasn't more effort to apprehend Polanski previously, but the fact is, once the documentary was out there, and Polanski's legal team decided to take action themselves, it resurfaced the issues -- and the attention of the U.S. authorities. Things happen -- and Polanski's team itself probably helped trigger the events that have unfolded.

FiredForNow...thank you for a much-needed injection of sanity in this debate.