Soooo a 44 year old having sex with a 13 year old is ok ?

[Krustee]

I once broke up with a guy when I was 25 because he told me his last girlfriend was 17 and they had been together for a few years. He was 33, so that means she was 14 or 15 when he was still in his 30's. I probably taught that guy to lie about that piece of information, lol, but I could not get past it.

You just don't have the best of luck with guys eh Harmony?

 

[spotted dick]

Their spokesman is....

Woody Allen.

No, it's not a joke. It's true.

If there was ever an example of truth being stranger than fiction

 

[planetsmurf]

all i gotta say is screw you hollywood for thinking because he has done a few good movies( i am not sure what they are) that he should get a pass on this crime because he has hidden in france for the last 30 years living the good life. people in hollywood suck!!!

 

[Yman]

all i gotta say is screw you hollywood for thinking because he has done a few good movies( i am not sure what they are) that he should get a pass on this crime because he has hidden in france for the last 30 years living the good life. people in hollywood suck!!!

I'm not so sure that Roman Polanski has had a ' good life ' . His wife Sharon and unborn child were savagely murdered by Manson's family. And Polanski's childhood was anything but ideal. He early years of WW2 he was forced to lived in a ghetto and his mother was murdered in Aushwitz concentration camp.

Furthermore it appears there was also sorts of shady dealings on behalf of the judge who was intent on changing the terms of his plea arrangement after the fact. Why trust in a corrupt justice system ?

And just because a few supporters in Hollywood who know the man have spoken their views doesn't mean it's the view of the movie industry. How small minded can you be ?

 

[planetsmurf]

I'm not so sure that Roman Polanski has had a ' good life ' . His wife Sharon and unborn child were savagely murdered by Manson's family. And Polanski's childhood was anything but ideal. He early years of WW2 he was forced to lived in a ghetto and his mother was murdered in Aushwitz concentration camp.

Furthermore it appears there was also sorts of shady dealings on behalf of the judge who was intent on changing the terms of his plea arrangement after the fact. Why trust in a corrupt justice system ?

And just because a few supporters in Hollywood who know the man have spoken their views doesn't mean it's the view of the movie industry. How small minded can you be ?

- i never knew anything about his life before, so i will admit i was ignorant of his past. but what i was talking about his 30 years living in france afterwards where he lived as a celebrated director.

- he got 42 day sentence for raping and drugging a 13 year old girl when he was 44. he deserves to spend years in jail for that and be on the sex offender registry list.

-from what i saw there were more then a few hollywood celebs who came out in support of him. so i will rephrase screw you certain hollywood celebrities and certain hollywood celebrities you suck

 

[OscarMann]

There are certainly a lot of celebrities who feel he should not be jailed. I read that More than 100 famous people signed a letter asking for him to be released.

I think he is fucked anyway, the USA does not like people who slap the face of their justice system.

I wouldn't have fucked her but she looked hot at 13

 

[odin]

- i never knew anything about his life before, so i will admit i was ignorant of his past. but what i was talking about his 30 years living in france afterwards where he lived as a celebrated director.

- he got 42 day sentence for raping and drugging a 13 year old girl when he was 44. he deserves to spend years in jail for that and be on the sex offender registry list.

-from what i saw there were more then a few hollywood celebs who came out in support of him. so i will rephrase screw you certain hollywood celebrities and certain hollywood celebrities you suck

He didn't get a 42 day sentence for raping, he was sent for up to 90 days of psychiatric evaluation, by the judge, to see if there was any chance he was, or could be, a chronic sex offender or pedophile. After 42 days he was released because they did not think he was either of these and did not pose a threat. Those 42 days were to be considered part of his undefined sentence, since it was done in a state prison. While he was on release, waiting for his sentencing hearing (he was in Europe), he heard that the judge had said he wanted to scrap the plea deal and give him prison time. So he never returned for the sentencing.

 

[timhorton]

Hard to blame him when the information about the judge was finally made public. Reject a plea agreement for no time and then impose 50 years? Ridiculous.

That is a complete fabrication. There was never a plea agreement. That was a story perpetrated and perpetuated by Polanski and his lawyer.

Read excerpts of the court transcripts here. Hard to argue with transcripts.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...polanski-transcripts/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsL2

The Lost Polanski Transcripts
by Marcia Clark
October 2, 2009 | 6:42am
Ina Fassbender / Reuters

The idea that Roman Polanski was done in by an unscrupulous judge is a myth. Marcia Clark studies the startling transcripts from his 1977 guilty plea.

Ever since he fled Los Angeles for Europe, Roman Polanski and his defenders have been putting out a story: he had to run because Judge Laurence Rittenband, after having promised not to impose any jail time past a 42-day psychiatric evaluation for having sex with a 13-year-old girl, had changed his mind and intended send him to state prison. It’s a myth.

How do I know this? From Roman Polanski.

“What is the maximum sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse?” asked the prosecutor.

“It’s one to fifteen – twenty years in State Prison,” responded Polanski.

The transcript of Polanski’s August 8, 1977 courtroom guilty plea is one of the lengthiest, most thorough pleas I’ve ever seen. Reading it allows one to literally travel back in time to the Carter years, and hear all the players—Judge Rittenband, prosecutor Roger Gunson and, yes, Polanski—in their own exact words. No interpretations, no spin.
First, Gunson read out the litany of charges Polanski initially faced:

“Mr. Polanski, you are charged in Information A-334139 with the crimes of Furnishing Drugs to a Minor, Lewd or Lascivious Acts upon a Child under 14 year of Age, Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, Rape by Use of Drugs, Perversion, and Sodomy, all felonies committed on or about March 10th, 1977.”

The single crime Polanski pled guilty to, unlawful sexual intercourse, was the lightest of the charges filed against him. But even so, because the victim was so young, the judge had the power to require Polanski to register as a sex offender, something Gunson was quick to remind the director.

“Mr. Polanski, because this offense involved a girl under the age of 14, it is mandatory that MDSO proceedings be instituted. MDSO means Mentally Disordered Sex Offender. If you are found to be an MDSO, you would have to register that fact with the law enforcement officer of the community in which you resided.”

Gunson then went on to ask: “….on March 10, 1977, the day you had sexual intercourse with the complaining witness, how old did you believe her to be?”

Polanski conferred with his lawyer and then answered: “She was 13.”

Gunson: “Did you understand that she was 13 on March 10, 1977, when you had sexual intercourse with her?”

Again, Polanski conferred with his lawyer, then answered: “Yes.”

So Polanski knew he faced the possibility of becoming a registered sex offender and admitted in open court that he was subject to that penalty because he knowingly had sexual contact with a girl who was 13 years old.

He also knew the sentence Polanski he was facing: “What is the maximum sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse?” asked Gunson.

“It’s one to fifteen—twenty years in State Prison,” responded Polanski.
“Do you understand it is also possible that you could be placed on probation, with or without being required to serve up to one year in the County Jail?” the prosecutor next asked.

“Yes,” responded Polanski.

Twenty years in prison—or zero. Felony with registration as a Mentally Disordered Sex Offender—or a misdemeanor with probation. Polanski knew the entire range of sentences he faced. And who did Polanski explicitly acknowledge had the sole power to decide which it would be? That’s what Gunson wanted to know:

“Mr. Polanski, who do you believe will decide what your sentence will be in this matter?”
Polanski: “The Judge.”

Polanski didn’t respond, so Gunson repeated this critical question: “Do you understand that the Judge has not made any decision?”

“Yes,” said Polanski.

Gunson next asked: “Who do you think will decide whether or not you will get probation?”

Polanski: “The Judge.”

Gunson: “Who do you think will determine whether the sentence will be a felony or a misdemeanor?”

Polanski: “The Judge.”

Gunson: “Do you understand that at this time, the Court has not made any decision as to what sentence you will receive?”

Polanski didn’t respond, so Gunson repeated this critical question: “Do you understand that the Judge has not made any decision?”

“Yes,” said Polanski.

Could this be any clearer? This exchange proves unequivocally that no sentencing promises had been made and that the judge would decide what Polanski would get. Then Gunson made it clear that this would be no lay-down by the prosecution either:

“Mr. Polanski, do you understand that at the time of probation and sentencing, the prosecutor may argue that you should be sentenced to State Prison, or be incarcerated in the County Jail?”

Polanski: “Yes.”

Gunson then elicited from Polanski that he was pleading guilty freely and voluntarily, after full consultation as to all the possible consequences of his plea with his lawyer, which included the “possible sentences, the possible MDSO procedures, and the possible deportation.” Gunson then went on to state: “The District Attorney will make a motion to dismiss the remaining pending charges after sentencing. Other than that promise, has anyone made any promises to you, such as a lesser sentence or probation, or any reward? Immunity? A court recommendation to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or anything else, in order to get you to plead guilty?”

Polanski: “No.”

Gunson then asked Polanski’s lawyer, Douglas Dalton, whether he was aware of any promises made to his client that hadn’t been stated on the record in open court that day, and the attorney confirmed that there hadn’t been, and he consented to the plea. At that point, the Judge Rittenband stopped the proceedings just before Polanski entered his plea:

“I must advise the defendant, under section 1192.5 of the Penal code, that the approval of the Court to the plea is not binding on the Court; that the Court may, at the time set for hearing on the application for probation or pronouncement of judgment, withdraw its approval, in light of further consideration of the matter; and three, in such case, the defendant shall be permitted to withdraw his plea, if he desires to do so. Now, Mr. Polanski—and the Court will also make a finding at this time that the plea was freely and voluntarily made, and that there is a factual basis for it. You may now proceed to take the plea.”

And so Gunson asked: “Mr. Polanski, to Count III of indictment number A-334139, which charges you with the commission of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse on March 10th, 1977, a felony, how do you plead?”

Polanski: “Guilty.”

Bottom line: Polanski’s story about getting sold a bill of goods so the judge could sell him down the river is bunk. Few defendants were ever more thoroughly warned of the sentence they faced and the power of the judge to impose it as Roman Polanski.
The next step was for Polanski to undergo psychological assessment by two psychiatrists to determine whether he was a MDSO—Mentally Disordered Sex Offender. At the same time, a probation report was prepared—routinely done prior to sentencing in all cases.

More...

 

[timhorton]

There are certainly a lot of celebrities who feel he should not be jailed. I read that More than 100 famous people signed a letter asking for him to be released.

Probably not one of them currently has a 13 year old daughter.

 

[booblover]

he made a deal with the young lady to pay her $500 000 for a settlement but it seems he never did pay. If he is brought back the prosecution should remove the plea arrangement and go to trial. Them give the rapist 50 years for all the counts against him. Why is it that once you are famous it seems to be okay to rape kids? R Kelly, Polanski, M Jackson etc..

 

[timhorton]

Hmmm, don't you have to come to a plea agreement before you plead one way or the other?

And so Gunson asked: “Mr. Polanski, to Count III of indictment number A-334139, which charges you with the commission of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse on March 10th, 1977, a felony, how do you plead?”
Polanski: “Guilty.”

Seems a little late to come to a plea agreement after you plead.

And a plea agreement isn't a plea agreement if it's not made in court. Is there a document accepting the plea? If so, please provide a link or reference. If not, it didn't happen.

Sure them may have talked about it, or lawyers proposed it, but it apparently never happened. Even if discussed, judge might have changed his mind when he saw Polanski with his arms around another teen between trial and sentencing. In court anyone's allowed to change and act on their opinion until it's formalized.

There may have been misconduct, but still no plea was formalized. Polanski's lawyers were stupid to count and act on such ungalvanized premises.

The judge agreed to give Polanski three months to get his movie up and running. But even then, whatever the lawyers may have thought, the judge foreshadowed a different agenda: “The request is for 90 days, and I assume that the defendant and his counsel were optimistic about the defendant just being given probation, and probably the contract was made on that assumption. However, it was miscalculated.”

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.

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

 

[timhorton]

Go back to the earlier links. Go to the California Court of Appeals links. Go to the mainstream news coverage. Watch the interviews in the documentary that launched the Motion to Dismiss prior to Polanski's arrest in Switzerland You'll find the following: both the Prosecutor and the defense lawyer back in 1977 thought that there was a plea agreement. The Judge thought so, too, and worked to avoid it.

Well, maybe my understanding of the US judicial system has been misinformed by too many television crime dramas. However, based on your claim, it seems plea agreements in the US are clandestine boiler-room pacts that are not documented and executed (or avoided) only after the prosecutor explicitly clarifies that no such agreement has been made, confirmed and expanded on by the judge, and the defendant pleads guilty? In my mind, given the selected transcript below, it's hard to argue that Polanski was wise to plead guilty without that agreement in hand.

What I don't understand is you write that everyone thought there was a plea agreement (to reduce from felony to misdemeanor?), including the judge. Where was it? Obviously hadn't been accepted. And was it charge agreement or a sentence bargain? Can't be either since the transcript below shows that the prosecutor clarifies that no agreement on charge or sentence. That leaves count bargaining, where Polanski would plead guilty to fewer charges, but he still plead guilty to the one that could land him in county jail.

Gunson next asked: “Who do you think will decide whether or not you will get probation?”

Polanski: “The Judge.”

Gunson: “Who do you think will determine whether the sentence will be a felony or a misdemeanor?”

Polanski: “The Judge.”

Gunson: “Do you understand that at this time, the Court has not made any decision as to what sentence you will receive?”

Polanski didn’t respond, so Gunson repeated this critical question: “Do you understand that the Judge has not made any decision?”

“Yes,” said Polanski.

Could this be any clearer? This exchange proves unequivocally that no sentencing promises had been made and that the judge would decide what Polanski would get. Then Gunson made it clear that this would be no lay-down by the prosecution either: “Mr. Polanski, do you understand that at the time of probation and sentencing, the prosecutor may argue that you should be sentenced to State Prison, or be incarcerated in the County Jail?”

Polanski: “Yes.”

Gunson then elicited from Polanski that he was pleading guilty freely and voluntarily, after full consultation as to all the possible consequences of his plea with his lawyer, which included the “possible sentences, the possible MDSO procedures, and the possible deportation.” Gunson then went on to state: “The District Attorney will make a motion to dismiss the remaining pending charges after sentencing. Other than that promise, has anyone made any promises to you, such as a lesser sentence or probation, or any reward? Immunity? A court recommendation to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or anything else, in order to get you to plead guilty?”

Polanski: “No.”

Gunson then asked Polanski’s lawyer, Douglas Dalton, whether he was aware of any promises made to his client that hadn’t been stated on the record in open court that day, and the attorney confirmed that there hadn’t been, and he consented to the plea. At that point, the Judge Rittenband stopped the proceedings just before Polanski entered his plea:

“I must advise the defendant, under section 1192.5 of the Penal code, that the approval of the Court to the plea is not binding on the Court; that the Court may, at the time set for hearing on the application for probation or pronouncement of judgment, withdraw its approval, in light of further consideration of the matter; and three, in such case, the defendant shall be permitted to withdraw his plea, if he desires to do so. Now, Mr. Polanski—and the Court will also make a finding at this time that the plea was freely and voluntarily made, and that there is a factual basis for it. You may now proceed to take the plea.”

And so Gunson asked: “Mr. Polanski, to Count III of indictment number A-334139, which charges you with the commission of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse on March 10th, 1977, a felony, how do you plead?”
Polanski: “Guilty.”

Both the prosecution and the judge explicitly state that no agreement exists and that the decisions of the judge and prosecution remains at the will of each.

Obviously confusion and disagreement about other details in the case, demonstrated by the current fervour about the case. But kinda difficult to argue with a court transcript. There very well may have been some skullduggery going on, but I don't think it's over the fact that no agreement was reached - I think that was fabricated by Polanski to save face, unless there is better evidence to show otherwise. You point to testimony in interviews with and opinion on those involved, but haven't they also admitted to lying about numerous other things? There is no spin in a transcript. I'm of course assuming that there are no meaningful redactions in Clark's transcript selection.