Roman Polanski Case

I'm starting to wonder if you are being deliberately dishonest or just have poor reading comprehension. He went to a prison, he was imprisoned in that prison. He underwent psyche evaluation during that time. The Judge sent him there for 90 days as punishment.

Please post something supporting the fact that he could have requested a transfer (you realise the process most likely would have taken more than 90 days, don't you?). In the plea bargain the Judge specifically names 2 doctors at that institution that he was to see. Not that it's relevant, Polanski never complained about being sent to that prison, the writer mentioned it and I left in the quote because I thought it was interesting.



Sounds like prison to me.

And you know how some folk are held in custody until their trial, and then they are convicted and sentenced and the sentence takes into account "time already served"? Well that means that time spent in prison before sentencing can count toward your sentence.
No need to get personal, it seems you dont understand our legal system and want to view it the way you wish.

When someone is arrested they are SENT to prison as a sort of holding area while you wait trial AND sentencing (unless the judge allow for bail, or special cases like this). But this does not automatically count as time severed or as part of your sentence. The decision sits in the hand of the judge to decided if he counts that time or not, not the person convicted.

After he pleaded guilty to the crime the judge asked he be have a psychiatric evaluation at the prison WHILE HE WAITED TO BE SENTENCED. It was to help the judge get a better idea of his mental state and help the judge decide what his sentence should be.
While it is prison and you argue that means he served time, our legal system does NOT recognizes it TILL a judge SAYS SO. If I am arrested and sit in jail and wait for a trial, I cant just leave after I am found guilty because I think i severed the time required. It is up to the Judge to decided how much time i serve and if he will count my time served. Everything your saying is pretty much against our legal system, and is outside how our courts work.
You say he had issues with the Manson gang being there, so i said if that was true he could have asked for a transfer or during sentencing that he be send somewhere else. Your article points out he was only originally sent for 90 days to get a psychiatric eval ONLY and nothing about serving his time. And that after 42 days he was released because the eval was over and that he had no real issues at Chino. Maybe he did or did not, its not said. But if he was worried he might be sentenced to Chino he could have asked to be moved somewhere else for his situation. Again i am speaking in hypothetical because we would never know because before he was sentenced he ran.
Movie director Roman Polanski, who had pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl, yesterday was ordered imprisoned for a 90-day psychiatric study to help the judge decide his sentence.

Polanski had contracted to photograph the girl for a French fashion magazine. Prosecutors said he took her to the home of actor Jack Nicholson while Nicholson was away, fed her champagne and Quaaludes, then committed numerous sex acts with her.

The probation report indicated that she consented. The judge said it made no difference.

The technical effect of the judge's decision will be for Polanski to spend some time in prison without having the record of a prison sentence against him unless he is eventually placed behind bars under a formal sentence.

Among the problems Polanski faces is possible deportation. However, the law provides automatic deportation only for those convicted of crimes of moral turpitude who are sentenced to one year or more in prison.
Originally published in The Washington Post, September 20, 1977 http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html



The issue about this case is he ran away to avoid our legal system, and now people defending him are saying everything they can to say he should not be held to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice
 
No need to get personal, it seems you dont understand our legal system and want to view it the way you wish.

Not getting personal, but I am getting frustrated.

It seems the problem is that you are ignorant of some of the key points in this case and you refuse to educate yourself.

I have a pretty good understanding of the legal system, better than the presiding judge in this case, it would seem. Let me put this next part in big letters so there is no misunderstanding...

Polanski had already been evaluated by psychiatrists before he was sent to Chino, he was found not to be a mentally disordered sex offender and probabtion was recommended.

The Judge then sent Polanski to Chino for a diagnostic ruling as punishment because this ruling circumvents the defendant's right to appeal, unlike a regular sentence.

Both prosecuting and defending attorneys argued that it was illegal to use diagnostic detention as punishment.


Starting to realise where those claims of misconduct come from?

Not only was he sent to Chino prison as punishment, it was done under the guise of diagnostic evaluation so that Polanski could not appeal the decision.

Got it?

I'll copy paste with some extra info.

While initially intending to go to trial, Dalton and Polanski eventually chose to plead guilty to a single count of unlawful sexual intercourse, as part of an agreement with Gunson. As a result, Polanski was evaluated by psychiatrists who found that he was not a ?Mentally Disordered Sex Offender.? They recommended a sentence of probation.

The media-conscious Rittenband, disquieted at the prospect of handing Polanski a light sentence when the US media and all the forces of ?law and order? were calling for the director?s head, refused to accept the recommended sentence of probation.

The judge wanted to put Polanski in prison, but knew that any sentence would immediately be appealed by his attorneys. In a highly improper ruling, Rittenband chose to sentence Polanski to 90 days in Chino State Prison for a diagnostic assessment consisting of an evaluation of Polanski?s mental state by still more doctors. Because the 90-day detention was mandatory and could not legally be appealed, it was the only way to insure Polanski would spend time behind bars. The ruling was opposed by both Dalton and Gunson who argued that it was illegal to use the diagnostic detention as punishment for a crime.

This attempt by the judge to circumvent Polanski?s legal right to appeal was followed by an increasingly bizarre series of incidents. With the judge insistent upon ordering the 90-day detention at Chino, Dalton and Gunson met with Rittenband in his chambers. Dalton sought a stay of one year before the judge ordered the Chino detention so that Polanski could complete his latest film, a work Polanski had no real interest in, but one that was necessary in order to pay his legal bills. The judge refused, but agreed to order a series of 90-day stays that he promised to approve for up to one year. As the film points out, the judge thought ?90 days? would ?sound better? to the press.

In an extraordinary turn of events, the judge instructed both Gunson and Dalton to take part in a charade in which they would proceed in court as though no deal had been reached in the judge?s chambers. With the first stay of 90 days already guaranteed by the judge, Rittenband informed Gunson that he was to argue before the court that Polanski should be imprisoned while Dalton was to argue for probation. The judge would pretend to arrive at a decision that he had already made. The whole affair was a performance concocted for the benefit of the news media, so that Judge Rittenband could save face.

The charade was carried out and, granted his stay, Polanski flew to Europe, as was his right, to finish work on his film. During a break in filming in Germany, Polanski attended an Oktoberfest celebration with friends. He was photographed at the event seated between two women. The photo was published in newspapers and tabloids.

The media seized upon the photo to further vilify Polanski. Judge Rittenband was incensed and embarrassed, and came under pressure from those who said the film director was flaunting his freedom and making a mockery of his trial.

Rittenband ordered Polanski back to the US and into Chino State Prison for the diagnostic. When, to his further embarrassment, Polanski was released early and once again found not to be a Mentally Disordered Sex Offender, the judge had had enough. With probation once again recommended as a sentence, Rittenband began to hint that, while Polanski might think he was only getting a slap on the wrist, the judge fully intended to throw the book at him.

The judge also asked that Polanski waive his right to any future deportation hearing in which the director could challenge any attempt by US authorities to expel him from the country. Rittenband had no jurisdiction in matters of deportation and his attempt to deprive Polanski of his right to a deportation hearing was yet another example of misconduct.

Under these conditions Polanski felt compelled to flee the country. He had complied with all the orders of the court until the judge?s actions became so egregious that he could no longer afford to do so.
 
YOU NEED A BIGGER FONT
 
Wow now your yelling seriously this is not the point of the forum. Read the rules, it says be civil.

As for that you yell about, that is an option to what the judge thought and the story told by the lens of those that support him (I dont see the cite of that story). Not fact, but an option by someone about what the judge did. If he felt the judge was doing it to punish him, he had remedies under US and CA Laws about it. His lawyer could have taken action against the judges actions saying it was unfair and questioned his ruling as a violation of the Eighth Amendment. But according that own report his Lawyer was a party to some of the weird act by the judge, which makes no sense.
 
Wow now your yelling seriously this is not the point of the forum. Read the rules, it says be civil.

Yelling. :lol:

Just trying to make it simple.

As for that you yell about, that is an option to what the judge thought and the story told by the lens of those that support him (I dont see the cite of that story). Not fact, but an option by someone about what the judge did. 1.If he felt the judge was doing it to punish him, he had remedies under US and CA Laws about it. 2. His lawyer could have taken action against the judges actions saying it was unfair and questioned his ruling as a violation of the Eighth Amendment. But according that own report his Lawyer was a party to some of the weird act by the judge, which makes no sense.

:wall:

1.

this ruling circumvents the defendant's right to appeal

2.

Both prosecuting and defending attorneys argued that it was illegal to use diagnostic detention as punishment

This was written by a Professor of Law at UCLA. I'm linking to a blog because the quote is part of a response to that and other blogs and is contained within it.

While you correctly point out that the plea bargain included language noting that the bargained agreement between the defense and the prosecution could not force the judge to accept the probation recommendation, such language is ?boiler plate? language which states the obvious to any attorney working in the criminal justice system. However, the plea bargaining system would fail if judges, after deciding not to accept the sentencing bargain agreed to by the parties, also then refused to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea and go to trial. The legal injustice here is not that the judge ultimately concluded that probation was an insufficient sentence for polanski?s egregious conduct; that decision lies within his discretion as the sentencer.

But, this judge then did the unthinkable by refusing to allow Polanski to withdraw his plea and go to trial. In short, he gave the state what it bargained for, the certainty of conviction while avoiding a contentious trial, yet the judge did not give the defendant what he was entitled to if he rejected the probation recommendation, the right to withdraw the plea and go to trial. This was outrageous judicial conduct then, and illegal in most jurisdictions today. If one were to put themselves in Polanski?s shoes at this juncture, the decision to flee the jurisdiction, while not the legally appropriate way to challenge the judge?s rulings, becomes understandable because of the clear message that the judge was sending: ?I am willing to violate the law to ensure you get what you deserved for the rape of a minor, your real conduct, but not the far less serious crime to which you pled guilty.?

TV legal pundits have noted that the appropriate way to challenge the judge?s misconduct was straightforward: Polanski should have gone to jail and had his attorney challenge the judge?s misconduct on appeal. Such observations ignore the bad choices Polanski was then facing: should he trust a legal system to correct a gross injustice that the very same system had just committed by going to jail and hoping that the appeal will be resolved in his favor[a process that might take years] or should he flee the system?s jurisdiction. I want to be clear as a former criminal defense attorney that I do not approve of his decision to flee; nor do I view him as the ?victim? then or now. However, his outrageous conduct towards his 13 yr old victim in no way justifies the legal system?s failures in this case.

I'm done.
 
Victim or Perpetrator?

The Tragic Case of Roman Polanski

By SPIEGEL Staff

Film director Roman Polanski is fighting to avoid extradition from Switzerland to the US, a country he fled over 30 years ago to escape serving time for the alleged sexual abuse of a 13-year-old girl. The case raises difficult questions about the US legal system, the current cult of celebrity and the excesses of the 1970s.

The office on one of the top floors of the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center has a view of downtown Los Angeles and the Hollywood Freeway, as well as Pasadena and Glendale a few miles to the north. The Hall of Justice, where Charles Manson was put on trial almost 40 years ago, can also be seen. There are family photos and a picture of a small pink duck on the desk.

The office's occupant is an employee of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, who prefers not to be identified by name. She has been extremely busy lately, as journalists from around the world contact her office, wanting to know why the Los Angeles district attorney asked Swiss authorities to arrest director Roman Polanski. They want to know why it took the D.A.'s office 31 years to push for Polanski's arrest, and what the point of it all is today, after so much time has passed.

She answers this question with a question of her own: "Do you know what kinds of cases I've worked on this year?" There was the case of a priest who abused a boy 20 years ago, she says. And then there was the school principal who had abused girls, and the case of another priest who is now serving a 10-year prison term for sexual abuse of a boy. "Can you explain to me why we're applauded for all of that, but are criticized for prosecuting Roman Polanski, who abused a 13-year-old girl?"

It's very difficult to find an answer to her question.

Victim or Perpetrator?

Since Saturday, Sept. 26, the Oscar-winning film director Roman Polanski has been in custody in a Swiss prison, fighting his extradition to the United States. Dozens of directors and actors in the film industry, including Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, Pedro Almodovar, Stephen Frears and Monica Bellucci, have signed and published a petition demanding the release of Polanski, who was born in Paris in 1933, raised in Krakow and holds French and Polish citizenship. They see him as a victim of the American justice system and the compliant Swiss authorities. Even the foreign ministers of France and Poland have intervened by appealing to their American counterpart, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But would they have an answer to the question posed by the employee of the Los Angeles D.A.'s office?

The truth is that the case is far too complicated to simply sign a petition in a moment of initial outrage or to rashly demand Polanski's release from prison. The legal procedures are confusing enough, but even more confusing is the bizarre and tragic life of a Holocaust survivor whose heavily pregnant wife Sharon Tate was murdered in 1969 by supporters of cult leader Charles Manson, a man with a swastika tattooed on his forehead.

The case revolves around many questions that do not lend themselves to quick answers, questions about the freedom of art and its limits, about the loss of perspective in the days of the sexual revolution and the drug culture, and about society's fascination with its stars, who are idolized and demonized at the same time. The case is about very important issues, issues of morality and law, atonement and justice and, most of all, about exactly how guilty Polanski is and whether his actions can even be excused.

Era of Excess

The case -- the People vs. Roman Polanski -- is filed under case No. A-334,139 at the Criminal Justice Center in Los Angeles. The file, which was created in March 1977 and has now grown to 10,000 pages, represents one of the oldest unresolved cases at the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.

Los Angeles was a wild place at the time. A few young directors and actors had stirred up a revolution in Hollywood. For the first time, it was not just producers and accountants who were determining which films were to be made. Hollywood's new stars were people like Dennis Hopper, Jack Nicholson, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola and Warren Beatty, and the films the studios produced told stories of male prostitutes, brutal cops and psychopathic taxi drivers. Hollywood was arguably never as good as it was in that era.

But it was also a time of unbridled rebellion. In an interview with Playboy, Nicholson described how he would dust cocaine on his penis before having sex, while Beatty told a TV interviewer about his bad habits and his penchant for excess. They stylized Hollywood as a place where morality was suspended, posing with the most beautiful women and living in a world of hubris and megalomania.

Shadowy Realm

Polanski was considered one of the most dazzling figures of the new Hollywood. His films seemed to emerge from some shadowy realm. In "Rosemary's Baby," he had Mia Farrow tied to a bed and raped by the devil. In "Chinatown," a film about corruption in Los Angeles, Polanski played a gangster who slits open Nicholson's nose. In the film, evil prevails in the end, and when Polanski was later asked what would have happened to the gangster he played, he said: "He would probably be in Mexico, screwing virgins."

There were no limits. The sexual revolution had changed everything. Playboy featured pictures of an 11-year-old girl, 12-year-old Brooke Shields played a whore in Louis Malle's film "Pretty Baby," and the soft-focus films of David Hamilton, in which he portrayed young girls as nymphs, reached a mainstream audience. Somehow it all seemed relatively normal at the time.

Polanski had many talents. When he photographed the actress Nastassja Kinski for the French edition of Vogue in 1976, she was only 15. He was rumored to have had an affair with her during the shoots. No one, least of all Polanski, found this unusual.

Polanski received a new commission for Vogue Hommes to photograph young girls from around the world. One of the models was 13-year-old Samantha Gailey, from Woodland Hills, a Los Angeles suburb. Polanski went to see the girl's mother, who gave her consent for the photo shoots, thrilled that the great Roman Polanski was going to photograph her daughter for Vogue. She even had no objection to the director's request that she not accompany her daughter. There were two sessions, and on both occasions Polanski picked up the girl from her home.

Meeting on Mulholland Drive

On March 20, 1977, the day of the second session, Polanski and the girl drove to the house of Jack Nicholson at 12850 Mulholland Drive. They were alone. When they arrived, the girl said that she was thirsty, according to the 39-page statement Gailey later made to the district attorney.

Polanski gave her champagne, and she drank it.

"How much did you drink?" the D.A. asked.

"I don't know," Gailey replied.

Polanski went to the bathroom to get a Quaalude, a drug that was popular at the time and that produces a euphoric feeling and acts as an aphrodisiac. Polanski gave her half a pill, but at first she refused to take it.

After he had taken a few shots, Polanski asked the girl to undress and get into the jacuzzi. Samantha felt uncomfortable, and she told Polanski that she wanted to go home. He sent her into a bedroom and told her to wait for him there. Again, she said that she wanted to go home. Polanski sat down on the couch next to her and asked whether she was okay.

"No," she replied.

Then he kissed her. She kept telling him that she didn't want to be kissed, and that he should leave her alone. "But I was kind of afraid of him," she said, according to the statement, "because there was no one else there."

'I Was Afraid of Him'

Polanski kissed her vagina. The girl said no, told him to stop, but he continued his advances and eventually penetrated her. He asked her whether she was taking the pill and when she had last had her period. "I said, 'I don't know. A week or two. I'm not sure,'" Gailey said.

Eventually Polanski had anal sex with her, the girl testified.

"Did you resist at that time?" the district attorney asked.

"A little bit, but not really because --"

"Because what?"

"Because I was afraid of him."

There was a knock on the door. "Roman, are you in there?" a voice asked. It was Angelica Huston, Nicholson's girlfriend at the time. "Yes," Polanski replied, "I just got out of the jacuzzi and I'm getting dressed." He went outside to say a few words to Huston. Then he returned and continued having intercourse with the girl.

When he was finished, he took the girl home and told her not to say anything to her mother, that it was their "secret."

At home, her sister overheard Samantha telling her boyfriend what had happened. The mother called the police that same evening, Samantha was taken to a hospital for an examination, and then they drove to a police station.

Huge Scandal

On March 24, 14 days later, Polanski was charged with six felony counts, including drugging and then raping a minor, sexual abuse of a minor, and having anal and oral sex with children. A huge scandal ensued and a massive media circus developed. Polanski claimed he was innocent. His lawyers began investigating the 13-year-old girl's background, and her mother came under fire.

The family's attorney's tried to quickly bring the case to a close. They wanted to avoid a public trial, so that the girl would not be stigmatized for the rest of her life. The district attorney proposed a plea bargain, a deal in which Polanski would plead guilty to only one of the felony counts, unlawful sex with a minor, while the other five counts would be dropped. Polanski's attorneys quickly agreed to the deal. Polanski himself spent 42 days in a state prison to undergo psychological evaluation. The psychologists favored a suspended sentence, arguing that Polanski was not a danger to society.

That was the plan. But it never materialized, because the judge was no longer interested in honoring the deal. When Polanski boarded a British Airways flight to London one day before the scheduled announcement of the judge's verdict, becoming a fugitive from the America justice system, an absurd case came crashing down, a case that at times was treated as if the crime it involved was nothing but a peccadillo.

'Everyone Wants to Fuck Young Girls!'

Chaos ensued. The efforts by the district attorney's office and the victim's lawyers to bring the matter to a speedy conclusion had failed, while the hopes of Polanski's attorney to extract his client from the case relatively unscathed were dashed. The judge's attempt to not come down too hard on a celebrity defendant, while at the same time resisting public pressure to impose a meaningful punishment, had also come to nothing. To this day, the Polanski case involves a crime without a conviction, a perpetrator without a punishment and a victim without peace.

Polanski went to Paris, where he soon directed a new film, "Tess," starring Nastassja Kinski. But he showed no remorse.

He told British novelist Martin Amis: "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But ? fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!"

In an interview with the French news magazine Le Nouvel Observateur, he was asked whether he regretted having had sex with the young girl.

"I regret everything I had to go through at the time."

But she was 13, the interviewer responded.

"To be precise, she turned 14 three weeks later," Polanski said.

Too Much to Cope With

He published his autobiography, "Roman by Polanski," in 1984. It tells the story of a young boy from Poland whose parents were deported and whose mother was murdered at Auschwitz. It's the story of a child who, at the age of nine, escaped from the Krakow ghetto through a hole in a barbed-wire fence and was hidden by farmers in the countryside, where he was later sexually abused.

He applied to acting school but was rejected for being too short at 1.65 meters (5'5") tall. Instead, he attended film school in the Polish city of Lodz, then went to Paris and later to London. His first feature-length film, "Knife in the Water," was nominated for an Oscar. He quickly became a celebrity in swinging London, where he met the actress Sharon Tate, who was cast in "Dance of the Vampires," his first commercially successful film. Then Polanski moved to Hollywood. In his book, he writes that it was the happiest time of his life.

Polanski was only 36 when his wife and their unborn baby were murdered. That all of this was probably far too much for one person to cope with is no understatement.

Part 3: No Trace of Remorse

Polanski devotes an entire chapter of his autobiography to Samantha Gailey, and yet there is no trace of remorse in his writing. He describes the sex he had with a 13-year-old the way one might describe sex with a normal, adult woman, and he even claims that she enjoyed it. But he says nothing about the girl resisting his advances, or about the anal sex. There is no sense of reflection in his account of the incident. "How was I supposed to hit upon the crazy idea of seeing what happened as rape?" he writes.

Over the years, he was asked about the incident again and again in interviews. The more time passed, the surlier his reaction became. He felt persecuted, both by the American justice system and by the press, but tried to clear away the wreckage of his past. He remarried, this time to actress Emmanuelle Seigner, born in 1966, and the couple now has two children.

Polanski paid a settlement to Samantha Gailey. Today her last name is Geimer and she lives on the Hawaiian island of Kauai with her family. Six years ago, when Polanski was nominated for an Oscar for his film "The Pianist," she wrote at op-ed for the Los Angeles Times. "If he could resolve his problems, I'd be happy," she wrote. "I hope that would mean I'd never have to talk about this again. Sometimes I feel like we both got a life sentence." Early this year, she even petitioned a California court to have the charges against Polanski dismissed. She wants to finally be able to live in peace, instead of constantly being confronted with the details of what happened to her as a child.

Warrant for His Arrest


Polanski almost returned to the United States once. At the instigation of the district attorney and Polanski's attorney at the time, shortly after the proceedings were terminated in 1978, the judge who had initially heard the case was replaced for reasons of alleged conflict of interest. Polanski was to return to the United States, where he would receive a suspended sentence. But the deal fell through when the new judge allegedly demanded that the sentencing portion of the trial be broadcast on television. The judge later denied this.

Since then, there has been an international warrant for Polanski's arrest -- for more than 31 years now. According to the district attorney's office, seven attempts were made to execute the warrant, in various countries -- seven in 31 years. It isn't that many.

In Germany, there was only one attempt to arrest Polanski, in 2005. Interpol submitted a request to German authorities for the "determination of (Polanski's) whereabouts." It wanted the German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) to find out where Polanski was living and to arrest him, if necessary. BKA officials, coordinating their response with the German Justice Ministry and Foreign Ministry, responded by saying they would not search for Polanski in their computer systems, because anyone who read a newspaper knew that he lived in Paris.

Polanski could have continued living as a fugitive more or less indefinitely. Although he lacked the freedom to travel to Britain or Canada, let alone the United States, he was otherwise left alone.

In Custody

The fact that Roman Polanski is now in Swiss custody awaiting extradition, after 31 years, has to do with a documentary film that revisited the case last year. The film, "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," by director Marina Zenovich, does not gloss over Polanski's crime, but it does reveal the problems with the case against him at the time, and it also makes it clear that the judge felt that his reputation was more important than the case itself.

After the film was released, Polanski's attorneys filed a petition in late 2008 to have the case dismissed, and in July they accused the district attorney's office of having never seriously attempted to have Polanski arrested abroad, because such an arrest would only have led to an investigation of the original proceedings. The attorneys' accusations may have been a mistake.

On Sept. 23, three days before Polanski's arrival in Switzerland, the US Justice Department sent a formal request to the Swiss Federal Office of Justice in Bern to have the director arrested.

Legal experts are now looking into whether Polanski can even be extradited. It partly depends on the countries' respective statutes of limitations, which are not the same in the United States as they are in Switzerland.

European-American Culture War


If he is extradited, he is likely to receive a relatively minor sentence, according to the district attorney's office in Los Angeles. A 16-month prison term is currently being discussed in the US media, unless Polanski's lawyers push to have the case dismissed, which would be complicated but not impossible. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has already ruled out a pardon.

The Polanski case has turned into something of a European-American culture war, revolving around the question of whether Polanski is in fact a perpetrator or a victim. And whether it is possible that time can turn a perpetrator into a victim.

The legal proceedings in Switzerland could drag on for several more weeks. Bail negotiations failed when the court argued that there was a high risk that Polanski could flee if released from custody. The director's new film, "The Ghost," is currently scheduled to be shown at the Berlin Film Festival next February.

It would be interesting to know what Polanski is thinking -- and to hear his answer to the question posed by the employee of the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office.

LARS-OLAV BEIER, JOHN GOETZ, LOTHAR GORRIS, MARC HUJER, BRITTA SANDBERG, MARTIN WOLF

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

Source: SPIEGEL Online
 
The Polanski case has turned into something of a European-American culture war, revolving around the question of whether Polanski is in fact a perpetrator or a victim. And whether it is possible that time can turn a perpetrator into a victim.

The whole angle of this article is silly. Why is it a question of perpetrator or victim? He was the perpetrator of one crime and the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
 
The whole angle of this article is silly. Why is it a question of perpetrator or victim? He was the perpetrator of one crime and the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
Exactly, he's both. Given that miscarriage of justice I can't blame him for fleeing. But I wouldn't be surprised about getting nabbed later either.
 
The whole angle of this article is silly. Why is it a question of perpetrator or victim? He was the perpetrator of one crime and the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

Just one crime? :p
 
I just thought the article might calm down the heated discussion a bit, since it contains a lot of sober facts and no real judgement.
 
Top