Basically, and IANAL (would love to hear Bricker or one of the other lawyer Dopers explain it in layman’s terms), it appears that Espinoza (and others who have reviewed the case over the years) finds misconduct and would be open to granting a new trial, BUT only if Polanski voluntarily returned, which of course he did not. However, the fact that Espinoza said that in his ruling is probably enough in and of itself to toss some serious monkey wrenches into the cogs.
For the record since there seems to be some confusion, I do not exonerate Polanski or excuse his actions. I think he’s guilty as hell (and also happen to think that as a result of his past and perhaps the 70s drug culture [which would go hand in hand with ptsd] he was seriously mentally disturbed at the time. I think he should have gone to prison in 1978 (and if he had this would all be over and done with now) and I think the French non-extradition policy is to assholery what the Eiffel Tower is to Parisian skyline and I really couldn’t give a damn about it causing an international incident.
It is the reopening of the case now in light of the victim’s wishes, the defendant’s age, the expense, and the lack of demonstrable benefit of incarceration or harm of continued liberty, that I object to. I recognize others disagree and for the most part I think their reasons are well argued and understandable, but I happen to differ.
But as with whether or not My Name is Earl will return, “with or without me/what will be will be”. Or as Doris Day said, “Que sera sera” (and her son was Terry Melcher who lived at… damn, isn’t it weird how many things keep going straight back there this summer and fall.)
And believe it or not I agree with this also; several talking heads have said “it’s not like he hasn’t suffered, he hasn’t been to America or England or several other countries in 30 years”.
Well, I would imagine the vast majority of French citizens haven’t traveled here in 30 years. It hasn’t affected his income. It is basically an inconvenience to him, but it’s not like he has family here or has to live here to make a fat living. This is as annoying an argument as “his art”.
Setting someone up for blackmail with an underage girl probably dates back to about fifteen minutes after the first statutory rape laws went into effect. As I said before, in any con the most dangerous point is when the mark realizes the game. That’s when people become dangerous. And I have seen scenarios awfully similiar to the Polanski case played out many times. Parent hopes to use attractive undereage offspring to get money, a house, a promation, etc. through what amounts to blackmail, the mark figures it out beats, rapes and sometimes disfigures the offspring.
Sexual blackmail is as old as time. Alexander Hamilton was involved in a “badger game” at the start of the nation.
Hollywood is particularly famous for such con jobs. Proven marks in sex/rape set0ups are Errol Flynn, Fatty Arbuckle, and Charlie Chaplin, and that’s just to name a few. Michael Jackson is perhaps the most famous person who many believe was set-up.
Thereagain there’s no proof this was such a case and she denied it in this 2003 Larry King interview, but even if this was a set up she was a victim no less. She certainly wasn’t responsible for it. However I think some people honestly aren’t aware how often these things happen and that it’s not a totally unreasonable suspicion, especially after they accepted money from him.
Ironically she states in that interview that in the late 1970s it was pretty much just assumed she was lying. Today it’s assumed it was rape. I’ve no doubt he’s a rapist, but if there is anything untoward about her family you can be pretty sure it’s all going to be front page and primetime news soon enough.
If the mark “figures it out,” why do they beat or rape the offspring? Wouldn’t “figuring it out” entail, you know…getting out of there and NOT raping the person?
Situations like that occur when the mark realizes the con artist has enough evidence on him (I’ve yet to see this scam worked on a woman, but give it time) to result in a legal conviction or a costly scandal. A few sexy emails or better yet something suggesting crossing a state line will result in serious prison time. At this point, the mark may feel, in addition to anger, that they might as well commit the crime if they going to be punished as if they did.
You MUST be joking. Most normal folks don’t consider rape, much less child rape, to be a “prize” worth obtaining.
Sure, if I was going to prision for five years for stealing $10 million, it was a set-up, and I then was presented with an opportunity to actually steal $10 million from the person who set me up (and keep it), I’d be tempted to take it and call that pay-back.
But the same doesn’t hold for the “opportunity” to rape a 13 year old.
According to Wikipedia, Geimer filed to have the charges against Polanski dismissed earlier this year. Her wishes don’t override the law, but I’m sorry she’s had to deal with this over and over because the press is undyingly fascinated with Polanski as an artiste-rapiste-outlaw. That’s not right.
After hearing that the claims of Polanski getting a raw deal were so badly inflated, I don’t have any sympathy for him. I’m sure he was screwed up by Sharon Tate’s murder, but the rape didn’t happen until eight years later.
I really think you’re grasping at straws here. As far as I’ve read, there’s no evidence that this was some sort of attempt at blackmail. Do you even realize how outlandish what you’re saying sounds?
At what point during the whole ordeal did Polanski suddenly realize that he’d been “set-up?” Was it before or after he told the girl and her mother that he was a photographer for Vogue? Was it before or after he gave the girl the alcohol and drugs? Whoops, you got me, might as well go all the way.:rolleyes:
Please define “normal”. Also, criminals are not known for thinking too far into the immediate future. “The bitch set me up, so I’m going to get even,” is the mentality. And when someone realizes they are the victim of a con or attempted con, rationality frequently disappears and the human response is viscreal, primal, anger. You don’t want mediated response, you want blood. As for the child rape issue, for most of human existence once the secondary sexual characteristics arrive, females have been considered old enough for sex.
The victim’s wishes mean exactly diddly squat fuck-all in the court of law. She could write a musical called Roman Polanski Is An Upstanding Citizen and put it on Broadway, and it wouldn’t and SHOULDN’T affect the outcome of his being arrested.
He raped a 13-year-old child.
It doesn’t matter if ‘everyone was doing it in the 70s’; it was a criminal act. Polanski wasn’t crazy, he was fully aware of his actions and the consequences.
It doesn’t matter if ‘her mom pimped her out to him’; the mom is not on trial. Polanski committed the rape.
It doesn’t matter that ‘he survived the Holocaust and his pregnant wife was murdered’; that doesn’t justify raping a child. Nothing justifies raping a child.
It doesn’t matter that ‘he’s an old man and life in prison would be too harsh for him’; it’s his own fault for fleeing from justice and not serving his sentence in the first place.
It doesn’t matter if ‘the cost of housing him in prison is exorbitant’; if Angelina Jolie went on a mass murder spree of infants, should she be let go because she’s rich and famous and it’d cost the prison system extra money to house her? Fuck no. Stick Polanski in prison just like Phil Spector and let them rot in there.
I think it sounds outlandish that an actual innocent rape victim would settle for $225,000 or say she forgave the alleged rapist. It doesn’t mix with what I know of human nature. Now, someone who was part of a scam, beaten up and raped; then later coming to terms with what happened and their role in it, forgiving the person and settling for $225,000, sounds very realistic.
This is one of those situations where I just can’t see the gray. Polanski admitted to raping an underage girl, and absconded without serving his sentence. He needs to serve his sentence and the penalty for absconding. That’s it.
All of the mitigating factors would resonate if he faced the music. He never did.
I’m extremely disappointed in Scorsese, Allen, and the others who are publicly supporting him. I am certain that he had horrible experiences in life, but the idea that one who is talented and has money can simply leave town for a number of years and all is forgiven - that’s bullshit.
Your theories are fascinating, but unless you can dispute the facts, you’re making up alternative stories where none are needed. If it was just a photo shoot, he raped a 13-year-old. If it was a setup gone bad, he raped a 13-year-old. And there’s no evidence it was a setup.
By the way, $225,000 in 1978 dollars is about $735,000 in 2008 dollars. Still not a lot, perhaps, but it was a different time.
Wikipedia offers the following on their meeting:
So they met twice, and he perved on her the first time. She left. They had a second shoot and he drugged and raped her. That’s some kind of setup: it looks like she tried harder to get out of it than he did.
It’s hardly surprising that Woody Allen is defending him. But that aside, yes, the French and “artistic community” response is embarrassing and thoughtless. The Pianist was a great movie, but the entire thing reeks of the worst kind of snobbery. “Great people like us shouldn’t have to follow the same rules as everybody else!” Get over yourselves.