Roman Polanski's lawyers are doing everything possible to get him out of jail and on bail. When you see the word bail just know they mean Roman headed back to France and never leaving again. On Friday, Polanski's lawyers offered a huge bail, but it was rejected because of his flight risk. There was no cash involved in the bail. Now though, Polanski's lawyers are offering what they describe as a "very very significant" cash bail. I don't care how much money he offers, do not let him out. Within a few hours he will be back in France. He probably just assumed he will make up the money on his next movie.
Meanwhile, if you are looking for people to add to your hate more than you ever thought you could hate someone list, please add Gore Vidal who in an interview with The Atlantic said this about the Polanski case.
"I really don't give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she's been taken advantage of? First, I was in the middle of all that. Back then, we all were. Everybody knew everybody else. There was a totally different story at the time that doesn't resemble anything that we're now being told....The media can't get anything straight. Plus, there's usually an anti-Semitic and anti-fag thing going on with the press - lots of crazy things. The idea that this girl was in her communion dress, a little angel all in white, being raped by this awful Jew, Polacko - that's what people were calling him - well, the story is totally different now from what it was then. Anti-Semitism got poor Polanski. He was also a foreigner. He did not subscribe to American values in the least. To [his persecutors], that seemed vicious and unnatural."
Gore Vidal has always been a piece of crap so I'm not surprised.
ReplyDeleteSHE WAS THIRTEEN!!! *SLAP*
ReplyDeleteTo think I admired that pig. What a vile, nasty pile of nonsense. The only person in that pathetic diatribe who is being persecuted is the 13 year old female, the most vulnerable one in the entire disgusting mess and the one he is inexplicably blaming for everything.
ReplyDeleteWhat Harriet said.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm Polish (grandparents born in Poland in late 19th century), and I think he should spend a very nice long time in prison (not jail).
Because he raped a child. I don't care what religion, nationality, color, gender, or age you are, that deserves punishment.
Yet another douche. I actually read the banner headline as correct the first time through.
ReplyDelete...and it's us stupid American troglodytes who don't understand sophisticated artistes who drug and rape 13 year old girls and flee from the law.
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised that his defenders include Vidal and Woody Allen.
I hope Polanski rots in a dirty cell.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletewhat i find a little hypocritical here Ent is that while you're ready to lynch Polanski for his past, you willingly participate in withholding information you may have about a possible murder (the last Four for Friday)
ReplyDeleteso unless that blind is complete b.s. i'm really confused by your thought processes and sense of morality here....
Does nobody get that this was a 13 year old girl??? I do not care about the circumstances she was thirteen years old! Unbelievable the hype these old Hollywood producers and actors (etc...) put out there, I am totally disgusted!
ReplyDeleteIf he was one of those who was "in the middle of all that," he WOULD care. And he certainly says a lot for someone who says he doesn't.
ReplyDeleteAnd he LOVES the attention.
Just look at the extreme language. He obviously still knows how to get everyone riled up. THAT, he cares about.
But otherwise, he doesn't give a fuck.
everyone should watch "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired".
ReplyDeletejust sayin'
Again..she was "13" just sayin'
ReplyDelete^^oh please. i'm not condoning his actions, i'm simply saying it's never that black and white.
ReplyDeleteempyrios, I've watched it. It's filled with half-truths and hyperbole. All you have to do to counter it is to read the court transcript of the young girl's testimony. It's as simple as that. There's no gray area to it. He drugged and forced a 13 year old girl to have sex with him. I don't care if the child was a wanton strumpet, there's a reason laws exist -- to safeguard OTHER 13 year old girls from hebephile morons like Polanski.
ReplyDeleteEmpyrios: she was 13 bam! there goes her consent.
ReplyDeleteShe said no bam! there goes her consent!
And in Texas, she was drugged, bam! there goes her consent!
A lot of Roman Polanski defenders can't seem to join the fact that he made good movies with the fact that he is a child rapist.
It is absolutely black and white. A 13 year old girl should not be drugged, raped and sodomized. Period. In fact, nobody should. Even the hookers who sell it. Because rape is not a sexual offense, it is a power offense, full of anger and having nothing to do with sex as we should know it.
ReplyDeleteThrow Vore Gidal in prison with Roman. They both deserve to rot there.
ReplyDeletespeaking of morons, i should've known that doing anything other than jumping on Enty's bandwagon would cause such a backlash.
ReplyDeletei am in NO WAY a Polanski defender. i AM however, not a fan of the american legal system and think that there was some dodgy shit going on during this whole ordeal. i think that everyone IS entitled to a fair trial and that didn't happen with this case. Even the victim has agreed with that.
She was 13 at the time and I frankly don't give a shit about who's values weren't appreciated.
ReplyDeleteShe was 13. You don't do things like that to someone who's barely started puberty.
I don't care if you raised the dead, healed the lepers and changed water into wine. You just don't do that without suffering the consequences.
And given that he's managed to successfully escape prosecution for the last 20+ years doesn't make it okay to sweep this under the rug either.
No matter how many Hollywood types come to his defense in hopes of getting either publicity or a potential part in a future project, (and incidentally show themselves to be complete and utter tools) it doesn't excuse the fact that he used his then fame (now infamy), a Quaalude and alcohol to RAPE a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD.
I can (and do) tend to excuse a lot - but the rape of a child isn't something that should be excused.
I'm not jumping on anyone's bandwagon but that of those who want to protect 13 year old children from rapists. I have real qualms with the US justice system. I have no qualms whatsoever with going after and imprisoning this confessed, unrepentant serial hebephile.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, empyrios, but WTF are you saying??
ReplyDeleteFirst you tell us all to watch a movie, then throw out a cliched line before calling us all morons and vaguely blaming the justice system. If you're so intent on making a point, make the fucking point.
empyrios does have two valid points, straight up. I'm not going to get into it, but it would be nice, for once, if people tried to step out of the realm of opinion and into the realm of law and due dilligence to apply said laws.
ReplyDeleteDear Gore Vidal,
ReplyDeleteI'm part Jewish, and request that Polanski be hung from the highest tree for all other sex offender to see. So much for your 'anti-semitic' argument suger-tits.
Okay, from a legal standpoint, HE CONFESSED.
ReplyDeleteThat's what all this bullshit is really all about. He confessed to his crime in exchange for a plea deal that would have let him just do time served, and the judge in the case said "no fucking way" because it was a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD CHILD and he wanted Polanski to answer for the crime.
Polanski ran to France where he's been sitting ever since, proverbially thumbing his nose at the American judicial system.
I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" but the SOB CONFESSED.
In my eyes, that kinda takes away the whole "innocent until proven guilty" argument.
if Samantha Geimer doesn't think he deserves to be "hung from the highest tree", then why would you? she was there. you weren't.
ReplyDeletehttp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/polanskis-cause-has-a-backer-in-his-victim-.html
Well, Gore, take your accusations of anti-semitism and climb back under your rock with them, too. America treasures our Jews. That's why so many of them are successful and lauded by the public for wonderful things in the arts and sciences and beyond. That one, however, is a child rapist. Usually, powerful, rich people get a free ride, a la OJ. He didn't. He didn't even have the balls of OJ. He ran. Disgusting.
ReplyDeleteI've mentioned this before but as someone who is half-Polish and who has regular contact with family in Poland, there are very few playing the "foreigner in the US" card there and those that do, aren't worth listening to.
ReplyDeleteHow dare anyone suggest he shouldn't get the sentence that was given out all those years ago because he doesn't feel like it? What a crock. The victim may want it to go away but nonetheless he hasn't paid his debt to society and bailing him, for however much it is, is as good as condoning what he did.
No child, because that's what she was, should have gone through such an experience and let's be honest, it's hardly likely to have been the first time he's had inappropriate feelings towards teenagers. Just look at his previous relationships.
unbelievable! i'm so glad he was denied bail. i, like everyone else here, become more outraged every time i read about this...it's insane. and what kind of human vomit equates that 13 yr old w/ a "young hooker"?! what a pos vidal is.
ReplyDeleteAnother prime example of Hollywood being completely out of touch with reality.
ReplyDeleteProbably the reason Polanski fled was because he knows what happens to Pedophiles in prison.
ReplyDeleteEmpyrios: Samantha Geimer has *no* legal standing to request that the charges be dismissed. It's the District Attorney's office that is prosecuting Polanski for his crime and his flight. Victims rarely influence DAs when the offenders have lived for 30 years in luxury after having confessed to the crime.
ReplyDeleteAnd he never paid Geimer the $500K settlement they reached in a civil suit. What an upstanding guy...
In all seriousness, the legal issues dovetail with the moral issues and outrage that people are expressing. We have laws precisely because children (and that's what a 13 year-old girl is) do not have the capacity or reasoning ability to make decisions that will/could forever change their lives.
Anti-Semitism might have been more rampant in the 1970s, but I doubt that most of us who are calling for his extradition and punishment have an anti-semitic bone in our bodies. I hate all child rapists.
Samantha Geimer has also said she wants the charges to be dropped as everytime the media talks about rape she is affected mentally and emotionally. Can't say I blame her. that being said Roman Polanski is a rapist and pedophile. I don't care how mature she looked the girl was 13 years old. 13. Its disgusting that people are actually supporting him. If he wasn't famous it wouldn't even be a thought in anyone's head.
ReplyDeleteAnother disturbing account detailed in the film has now been revealed to be a lie. While the excerpt follows, if you're interested, check out the full story at
ReplyDeletehttp://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski25-2009oct25,0,5115267.story?page=1
"The film delved into the allegations against Rittenband. Dalton and Gunson recalled private meetings in which the judge told them what to argue at the sentencing hearing, even as his decision was already made. Another prosecutor, David Wells, said he was constantly in the judge's ear about the case and planted the idea of the psychiatric study at Chino.
"Polanski's attorneys jumped on Wells' statements as the key basis for a full-throttle push to have the case thrown out -- their first public move in 30 years.
"They had now cleared every obstacle they could. They had the victim on their side. They had Wells. They had Gunson saying the judge acted in bad faith. They even had a transcript of the filmmaker's interview with Richard Doyle, one of current Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley's bureau directors, saying he believed Rittenband abused his authority. (Doyle also said he thought Polanski's crime was "extremely calculated. . . . I don't think he had any intention of doing a photo spread of the girl.")
...
"On Sept. 22, Cooley drafted a warrant for his arrest. Polanski, now 76, was arrested four days later while getting off the airplane in Zurich.
"Four days after that, Wells told the media he made up the stories in the documentary about Rittenband. "I'd like to speak of it as an inept statement but the reality is that it was a lie."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@empyrios What rock did you crawl out from under? You make a complete hash of the basic facts.
ReplyDelete1.) There was nothing shady or dodgy about the trial because there was none. Polanski plead guilty to a single reduced charge in return for a reduced but undetermined. That obviated the need for a trial.
If there was anything shady at that time it was the deference shown Polanski, in the forms of the reduced charges and being allowed to travel to Europe to complete a movie while still on bail.
2.) In our legal system the state is the victim not Ms Geimer and has the sole right to determine if this case goes on.
Do your homework before you start forming opinions or commenting.!
I have very vague memories hearing about this when I was growing up and the story that was splashed around was that she was 14, consented to every act and was not coerced in any way. Even were this story true and she had she consented, the fact that she was 13 makes this more than some simple trumped up "morals" charge a la the sin of cohabitation. The truth however is more sinister as he had to ply her with drugs and alcohol and she was still staying no. That makes this rape, not statutory rape.
ReplyDeleteAs a Jew, the only thing I find more offensive than using his family history/WWII as some sort of defense, is claiming the charges are a result of antisemitism. The charges against Leo Frank had their root in antisemitism; the charges against Roman Polanski are based on criminal activities he admitted to engaging in.
Our justice system may be imperfect, but no one beat him into entering a guilty plea.
ReplyDeleteFuck yourself HudsonJoe! Who the hell are YOU to tell empyrios when he/she may have the privilege of forming an opinion?
ReplyDeleteKudos to you empyrios for sticking to your opinion and going against the lemmings who live on Enty's bandwagon.
I still would like to know where the hate is for Samantha's pimp. Remember her? The kid's MOTHER who pimped her little girl out?
That skank is even more guilty than Polanski, as she is the one who pretty much giftwrapped her child for this man.
We're not talking about her mother. Her mother is a different issue. We're talking about her offender -- the one who drugged, raped and sodomized her.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it when the emphasis is put on the one who perpetrated the crime, the global pedo apologist brigade gets nervous?
Who gives a rat's rear what GV says? We've all seen the testimony and know exactly what happened. He needs to evolve from the Jurassic era.
ReplyDeleteBecause of the way things were then, we now have laws that protect children.
@WBotW
ReplyDeleteFirst off WBotW good mouth.
Second you need to learn how to read. I never told him he could not form an opinion. What I did say was to get the basic fact at issue correct before stating an opinion in a public forum.
Third where do you get off call the girl's mother a pimp? Did you read the grand jury testimony? You can accuse her of poor judment. But if you are going to call her a pimp you are going to have to call every stage parent in the world a pimp.
WBotW, you really need to address what ever your unlying issues are that generates such anger.
THANK YOU ENTY FOR TAKING WOMEN/YOUNG GIRLS'S SIDES. so many people think that just because you made some good movies and have powerful friends you should be forgiven. I wanted to throw up a couple years back during the academy awards when polanksi was nominated and he got a standing ovation by people in the audience including nicole kidman and other prominent celebrities! Thats when I stopped watching the awards show knowing that I probably have a higher level of education then half those actresses/actors. Thank you community college for instilling a good moral compass in me!
ReplyDeleteI am so sad to read that Gore Vidal said this--he writes some of the most insightful, funny political essays I've ever read. But he's dead wrong on this issue and also proves himself to be misogynistic and callous. I will never be able to read him again.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but I've read that transcript and I happened to find a few things quite odd.
ReplyDeleteRoman met with that girl twice. At the first meeting he drove her to a hill or something and after a while he asked her to take off her shirt. The first time she answered 'No' and after Roman asked her again she took off her shirt and let him do the photos. What I don't understand is that if this was the point at which she felt already threatened by/scared of him then why didn't she say something to her mother and voluntarily let him take this kind of pictures of her a second time instead?
Also, almost everytime he asked her to do something (taking off her clothes and join him in the tub) or offered her the pills and champagne she firstly said no to him but shortly after he asked again she agreed immediately and did what he asked her to. She didn't even say that he forced her to do things, he just asked. And he only had to ask twice. She also said that she talked to her mother on the phone while being in that house with Polanski.
I'm sorry again, but I think that she was some kind of teenage Lolita and that her mother 'offered' her to Polanski in exchange of money or a career. I think that the girl was aware of that deal too and was probably going to get her share of it.
Something must have gone wrong. Maybe Polanski broke the deal by not paying enough or whatever.
Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean that he's not guilty of taking advantage of that girl, but I think that at least her mother should be questioned about her part in that incident too.
Gladys, Harriet and others: I completely agree with you.
ReplyDeleteMina - dont apologize, I understand your questions. But, how many times do you think a 13-year old should say no to a man much, much older and more powerful than her before it counts as rape?
Also, I seriously think the existance of "Lolitas" (young girls, highly developed and sexual, trying to seduce older men) is made up by men who are attracted to young girls and are looking for an excuse to rape them.
Linnea, actually a Lolita or Nymph according to Nabokov's famous novel is definitely not highly developed, sexual or seducing. They don't even know their appeal to men. They don't have breasts, pubic hair or a sex drive yet.
ReplyDeleteBut I didn't use that word in the novel's context here either, so it seems to be misleading, I agree.
I just meant that she might have been tought by her mother to play the underage seducer to earn money for them or get ahead in the show business.
I just think that something about that story smells fishy to me.
I mean that even before he had the chance to have intercourse with her there were a few occasions on which she would have been able to tell her mother and prevent this from happening to her. But she didn't.
But, how many times do you think a 13-year old should say no to a man much, much older and more powerful than her before it counts as rape?.
But that's exactly what I find odd.
According to the transcript she never mentioned that he threatened her either verbally or physically. If I would have a photo shoot with an older man who tells me to take off my shirt and I wouldn't really want to but obeyed after the second time he'd asked me to due to being scared that he could harm me, I sure as hell would have told my mom and would have never gone out with that man for a second photo shoot again.
I just can't help it. There's more to the story than what we get to know.
Again, not to say that Polanski isn't guilty of molesting her. He should have known his boundaries.
Thanks for not jumping down my throat, Linnea. :)
No prob.
ReplyDeleteIn the book, though, Lolita seduces the older man, doesnt she? And is described as "sexually precocious"
@HudsonJoe
ReplyDeleteI find it really ironic that you jump on WbotW in regards to reading skills when you obviously misread my earlier posts, lol. But we won't kick the hive any further.
I will say though that I don't think i'll be taking advice from someone ("Do your homework before you start forming opinions or commenting.!") who can't even form complete sentences:
"Polanski plead guilty to a single reduced charge in return for a reduced but undetermined."
Have a lovely day.
@HudsonJoe - well said. WBotW does have serious anger issues.
ReplyDelete