A friend of mine is distressed about this story, not because he has any sympathy for rich famous rapists, but because he is not certain of the original validity of the court proceedings. He's appalled that everyone's arguing "Rapist" vs. "But he's an artist" if there are questions about the validity of the original trial or lack thereof.
[Yes. This means he is calling the 13 year old's statements into question. As there have been extortion cases in the history of ever, I'm taking it as a valid question, because I'm curious about the points that follow it. He is one of the biggest "rape is bad" allies I know and not an apologist.]
So this is what I know: Polanski was accused. There was physical evidence of semen (but not DNA evidence of whose) in the girl's underwear. He was charged with six counts of OMGWTF. He plea-bargained by pleading guilty to one much less serious count. The judge reneged on the plea bargain in some way (I can't get a clear non-contradictory answer on exactly how).
My friend says, "If I was looking at 40 years in prison, I'd sure as hell plea bargain. And if, having pleaded guilty in the plea bargain, I then had to face a trial where people would presume I really was guilty due to the plea bargain, I'd run if I could. Saying 'I'm innocent' at that point wouldn't help anything, so I'd just refuse to discuss it publicly."
So basically he's distressed that people are acting like there was a trial when there was only a plea bargain, and there's a long history of people confessing to all sorts of things they didn't do in plea bargains.
My personal reaction is that any time there's a scandal, there's a vocal camp of people saying he might not have actually done it. (See Michael Jackson.) I have not seen or heard from that camp on the Polanski case. Enter Occam's Razor. My first assumption is that there's more data, such as public evidence or statements from Polanski or his close associates, establishing that there's no question of innocence.
So I'm coming to you, rm, because you have been following this thing with much more attention than anyone else I know, and follow more entertainment and actor news (from the inside and the outside) than anyone I know.
You are clearly confident that Polanski did it. I trust and respect your opinion and knowledge on these things. Could you give me a little more information on where you draw your confidence from? My own personal Don Quixote settles right down if he's given some data.
Polanski plead guilty to a lesser charge and fled before sentencing. He is guilty by his own admission. While we could theoretically debate whether the please was a sincere admission of guilt or a strategy, the plea remains. Therefore, having made that plea, he should return to the US for a sentencing proceeding to deal with the matter. If he gets no jail time for it, I'll be uncomfortable with that, but so be it -- part of our necessarily flawed process, and hey, I'm not part of the court proceedings. But there is no question here of an unfair conviction. The man pled guilty and despite having been given several opportunities to return to the US to resolve the matter without facing significant additional penalty for having fled, Polanski didn't take those opportunities.
(Thanks for your patience, by the way. I wouldn't even bother you with what I saw as a pretty fine hair to split, but my friend is not neurotypical and gets very emotional about ambiguities where Justice might be involved.)
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html is the girl's deposition.
Sometimes our justice system does go awry, but I don't understand why in the case of a man who pled guilty, your friend thinks it's more likely that a 13-year-old girl made up 36 pages of that, than that Polanski actually committed the crime he pled guilty to.
(not venting at you, but why are women always liars)
That link is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. Thank you.
(Amen re: liars. It was... a challenge to have this conversation with him, because he is an absolutist. He would be the first to say, if he could get past the "wait a minute, there was never a trial so we will never know the evidence," that Polanski almost certainly did it and should be nailed for it. I hope that, with the explanations you, dsmoen, and tsarina have provided, I can get him onto the same page of the discussion as the rest of us are having.)
Here are a couple more links that might be useful:
Polanski in interview with Martin Amis is completely unrepentant (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaeldeacon/100011795/roman-polanski-everyone-else-fancies-little-girls-too/): “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”
Court transcript in which Polanski pleads guilty and states that he knew the age of the victim. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html)
Success! (He had thought there had been an explicit sentence bargain the judge was reneging on, and the plea clearly refutes that.)
Quoth Don Quixote: "Well, in that case, let the bastard hang. And the people saying, "Oh, poor old rich famous white man, his victim has moved on, why can't the law" are ridiculously full of shit.
Thanks for taking the time to find me links that clarify the situation and assist in my peace of mind."
FWIW, there was no such thing as DNA evidence used on semen at that time, that didn't happen until 2000 when DNA test kits became available. Even so, until PCR was readily available, it was a difficult proposition for a number of reasons.
Nevertheless, the point is that he fled. Let's have a trial already and go over the evidence and do the right thing, but to just let him go because he fled is the wrong thing to do.
Yes, sorry I wasn't clear. There wasn't DNA evidence because they couldn't do DNA evidence yet.
I am in complete agreement re: flight. The more I look at it, the more my Don Quixote's concern seems to hinge on the idea of the justice system pulling a fast one which, given the caliber of lawyers Polanski can afford, seems awfully unlikely.
Even if the judge planned on reneging on a plea agreement with the DA's office, it is within his right to do so. A judge may refuse to honor a plea agreement they feel does not satisfy the requirements of the case or contravenes the law. A judge is also not legally bound to have to accept a deal made by the prosecution.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I have a question! (Bear with me.)
Date: 2009-10-01 01:30 am (UTC)A friend of mine is distressed about this story, not because he has any sympathy for rich famous rapists, but because he is not certain of the original validity of the court proceedings. He's appalled that everyone's arguing "Rapist" vs. "But he's an artist" if there are questions about the validity of the original trial or lack thereof.
[Yes. This means he is calling the 13 year old's statements into question. As there have been extortion cases in the history of ever, I'm taking it as a valid question, because I'm curious about the points that follow it. He is one of the biggest "rape is bad" allies I know and not an apologist.]
So this is what I know: Polanski was accused. There was physical evidence of semen (but not DNA evidence of whose) in the girl's underwear. He was charged with six counts of OMGWTF. He plea-bargained by pleading guilty to one much less serious count. The judge reneged on the plea bargain in some way (I can't get a clear non-contradictory answer on exactly how).
My friend says, "If I was looking at 40 years in prison, I'd sure as hell plea bargain. And if, having pleaded guilty in the plea bargain, I then had to face a trial where people would presume I really was guilty due to the plea bargain, I'd run if I could. Saying 'I'm innocent' at that point wouldn't help anything, so I'd just refuse to discuss it publicly."
So basically he's distressed that people are acting like there was a trial when there was only a plea bargain, and there's a long history of people confessing to all sorts of things they didn't do in plea bargains.
My personal reaction is that any time there's a scandal, there's a vocal camp of people saying he might not have actually done it. (See Michael Jackson.) I have not seen or heard from that camp on the Polanski case. Enter Occam's Razor. My first assumption is that there's more data, such as public evidence or statements from Polanski or his close associates, establishing that there's no question of innocence.
So I'm coming to you, rm, because you have been following this thing with much more attention than anyone else I know, and follow more entertainment and actor news (from the inside and the outside) than anyone I know.
You are clearly confident that Polanski did it. I trust and respect your opinion and knowledge on these things. Could you give me a little more information on where you draw your confidence from? My own personal Don Quixote settles right down if he's given some data.
Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)
Date: 2009-10-01 01:47 am (UTC)Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)
Date: 2009-10-01 02:07 am (UTC)(Thanks for your patience, by the way. I wouldn't even bother you with what I saw as a pretty fine hair to split, but my friend is not neurotypical and gets very emotional about ambiguities where Justice might be involved.)
Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)
Date: 2009-10-01 01:24 pm (UTC)Sometimes our justice system does go awry, but I don't understand why in the case of a man who pled guilty, your friend thinks it's more likely that a 13-year-old girl made up 36 pages of that, than that Polanski actually committed the crime he pled guilty to.
(not venting at you, but why are women always liars)
Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)
Date: 2009-10-01 02:22 pm (UTC)(Amen re: liars. It was... a challenge to have this conversation with him, because he is an absolutist. He would be the first to say, if he could get past the "wait a minute, there was never a trial so we will never know the evidence," that Polanski almost certainly did it and should be nailed for it. I hope that, with the explanations you, dsmoen, and tsarina have provided, I can get him onto the same page of the discussion as the rest of us are having.)
Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)
Date: 2009-10-01 04:04 pm (UTC)Polanski in interview with Martin Amis is completely unrepentant (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaeldeacon/100011795/roman-polanski-everyone-else-fancies-little-girls-too/): “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”
Court transcript in which Polanski pleads guilty and states that he knew the age of the victim. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html)
Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)
Date: 2009-10-01 05:05 pm (UTC)Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)
Date: 2009-10-01 06:22 pm (UTC)Quoth Don Quixote:
"Well, in that case, let the bastard hang. And the people saying, "Oh,
poor old rich famous white man, his victim has moved on, why can't the
law" are ridiculously full of shit.
Thanks for taking the time to find me links that clarify the situation
and assist in my peace of mind."
Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)
Date: 2009-10-01 06:48 pm (UTC)Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)
Date: 2009-10-01 03:05 am (UTC)Nevertheless, the point is that he fled. Let's have a trial already and go over the evidence and do the right thing, but to just let him go because he fled is the wrong thing to do.
Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)
Date: 2009-10-01 03:36 am (UTC)I am in complete agreement re: flight. The more I look at it, the more my Don Quixote's concern seems to hinge on the idea of the justice system pulling a fast one which, given the caliber of lawyers Polanski can afford, seems awfully unlikely.
Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)
Date: 2009-10-01 04:05 am (UTC)Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)
Date: 2009-10-01 02:27 pm (UTC)