# To all the celebrities supporting Roman Polanski's release **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 1, 2009, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238 "2009-10-01T15:34:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/81 "2009-10-02T19:43:34Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The issue that most people actually _care about_ is whether he actually _did_ drug and anally rape a 13 year old girl. > > The fact that he _has_ copped a plea to having _statutorially raped_ that girl is, in the presence of a damning witness statement which clearly shows that she alleges he drugged and raped her, and in the absense of any hint from him in the 30 years he’s been on the lam that he hasn’t, pretty good evidence that he did, in fact, drug and rape her. . I strongly disagree. I am not saying that I don’t think he did it. I am saying that copping to a lesser charge which necessairly requires the pressence of a greater charge, is not indicative of guilt of the greater charge, no matter how damn descriptive the witness’s non-cross-examined statement is. Likewise, given that I find a compelling reason not to talk about this, the lack of a specific denial is not particularily damning. The only thing damning is the flight and that has been explained as a fear of a stiffer sentence than discussed. It still does not in any way indicate an admission to the greater offenses. It just doesn’t. > [@Malthus](#): > > Thus, while it is technically correct that his copping a plea to the lesser offence isn’t an admission that he committed the more heinous offences, this is a distinction quite without merit, since in all likelihood he did do it, and that’s what folks actually care about. . This is simply horseshit. Pleaing to a lesser offense is in no way an admission to the greater offense. There is nothing techinical about it. Court: Bean, did you break the window on the house and steal the tv inside. Bean: I admit I broke the window. Court: Ah, so you admit you stole the tv inside. Bean: WTF? > [@Malthus](#): > > And yes, I cannot understand why his lawyers would instruct him to “not deny” he committed the offence, once he’s fled the jurisdiction and sworn never to return. How on earth can he possibly prejudice his case _more_ by a denial? And why on earth should he care? . Sorry. It’s pretty obvious to me. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/82 "2009-10-02T19:57:56Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > I strongly disagree. I am not saying that I don’t think he did it. I am saying that copping to a lesser charge which necessairly requires the pressence of a greater charge, is not indicative of guilt of the greater charge, no matter how damn descriptive the witness’s non-cross-examined statement is. Likewise, given that I find a compelling reason not to talk about this, the lack of a specific denial is not particularily damning. The only thing damning is the flight and that has been explained as a fear of a stiffer sentence than discussed. It still does not in any way indicate an admission to the greater offenses. It just doesn’t. You can repeat that 'till the cows come home, but sad to say it isn’t convincing. It’s the combination of factors - copping a plea, an uncontestsed witness statement, his flight, his lack of any claim that the witness was lying - indicates to any objective person that he’s more likely than not totally guilty. > [@](#): > > This is simply horseshit. Pleaing to a lesser offense is in no way an admission to the greater offense. There is nothing techinical about it. > > Court: Bean, did you break the window on the house and steal the tv inside. > Bean: I admit I broke the window. > Court: Ah, so you admit you stole the tv inside. > Bean: WTF? What is “horseshit” is your characterization of the argument. > [@](#): > > Sorry. It’s pretty obvious to me. Well, _that_’s convincing. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/83 "2009-10-02T20:07:14Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > You can repeat that 'till the cows come home, but sad to say it isn’t convincing. So, pleading to lesser included offense is indicatvie of guilt of the greater offense? Or is it only indicative of guilt if you don’t deny the witness statement underlying the charge you just implicitly denied? > [@Malthus](#): > > It’s the combination of factors - copping a plea, an uncontestsed witness statement, his flight, his lack of any claim that the witness was lying - indicates to any objective person that he’s more likely than not totally guilty. There is no reason to contest the witness statement in the presence of a plea and it is ill advised for a defendant to discuss the particulars of a criminal proceeding unitl it is finally resolved. Polanski has never admitted/confessed to drugging and anally raping a 13 year old. Those saying he has are wrong. Those saying he did drug and anally rape a 13 year old might very well be right. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/84 "2009-10-02T20:19:30Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > So, pleading to lesser included offense is indicatvie of guilt of the greater offense? Or is it only indicative of guilt if you don’t deny the witness statement underlying the charge you just implicitly denied? Absent an explicit denial at any point over three freaking decades, in any of numerous interviews on the subject? Hell, yes. So far as I know, Polanski has never so much as hinted that he didn’t do everything he was accused of. That’s not legally determinative, but that’s not what’s Malthis claimed. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/85 "2009-10-02T20:44:49Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > Polanski has never admitted/confessed to drugging and anally raping a 13 year old. Those saying he has are wrong. Those saying he did drug and anally rape a 13 year old might very well be right. But he did plead guilty to having intercourse with a 13 year old. He also paid an undisclosed sum of money to the alleged victim after she sued him in civil court. That’s pretty damning. I feel for the victim, who wishes that the DA would drop it, but I think that we need to send a message to folks that if they flee justice, it’ll catch up with them eventually. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/86 "2009-10-02T20:52:27Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Absent an explicit denial at any point over three freaking decades, in any of numerous interviews on the subject? Hell, yes. > > So far as I know, Polanski has never so much as hinted that he didn’t do everything he was accused of. That’s not legally determinative, but that’s not what’s Malthis claimed. And remember: he famously made the statement that everybody wants to fuck little girls. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/87 "2009-10-02T21:11:32Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > This was the late 70s after all; you still had the carryover of the “sex and drugs” culture of the 60s and early 70s, and the child abuse moral panic hadn’t gained momentum yet. To the extent that moral blindness aided and abetted by the fashions of the day can be said to be less culpable than conscious wrongdoing, Polanski might have genuinely believed that he wasn’t pushing the envelope that far. Doubtless he was rudely surprised to discover that middle class America didn’t subscribe to the progressive mores of Hollywood. He was certainly MORE rudely surprised to discover that the same counter-culture of “sex and drugs” produced the morally blinded monsters who butchered his wife and child. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/88 "2009-10-02T22:05:57Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > I have a question. > > This, as I understand it, happened at Jack Nicholson’s house. What, if any, was his role this situation? I know he was never charged, but if I’d known a guest raped another guest in my living room, I’d be all kinds of put out. To amplify what **Angry Lurker** said: Nicholson was not present at his residence at any time while the offense was being committed. His girlfriend (Anjelica Huston)was, but she was not present at the actual commission of the crime. No one has ever seriously presented any reason to tar Nicholson with any aspect of this crime. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/89 "2009-10-03T10:06:00Z")
> [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > this is a man drugging someone, refusing to take her home when she begged him to do so, kissing her even though she begged him to stop, going down on her as she said no and asked him to stop, having vaginal intercourse with her as she said no and asked him to stop, he asked if he could have anal sex with her and when she said no did it anyway until he was finished. > > That’s not consent. Regardless of age, that’s rape. No, that’s _alleged_. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/90 "2009-10-03T10:08:24Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > It seems a bit silly to say we can’t talk about rape until a conviction on that charge is obtained in a trial. Oh, we can talk about rape until the cows come home. But we can’t call the accused a rapist. Not if we have any ethics, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/91 "2009-10-03T10:29:50Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > It’s definitely a stretch to go from this to saying in a random online discussion that Polanski presumably did not commit rape. That is no stretch at all. Polanski presumably did not commit rape, as judged by a court of law, because he is presumed innocent unless he is convicted of rape. > [@Xema](#): > > We are quite free to consider that question on the evidence available, which in this case includes a detailed, contemporaneous statement from the victim, and (so far as I can tell) no counterclaim from any source at any time. So Polanski must publicly claim, outside of a legal proceeding, that the girl’s statement is untrue; otherwise, he is guilty of rape? Holy shit. Now _that’s_ frontier justice. Yippee–kiy–eye–oooooo!!! Go Glenn Beck!! > [@Xema](#): > > To believe that Polanski was guilty of no more than what he pled to, we must believe that the girl repeatedly lied through her teeth, and that he never saw fit to raise so much as a peep of objection to such lies. I don’t know if the girl lied or not, I don’t know if Polanski raped her or not, and I’m certainly not claiming to know. I suspect he probably did. But that doesn’t mean shit. OTOH, \*you \*seem to think that _your_ opinion determines his guilt or innocence. What makes you so sure, Kreskin? Did you hear on cable TV what the verdict is? Who is guilty? How to vote? What clothes to wear this season? Which God to worship? It must be blissfully easy to let whatever you read on the internet make up your mind for you (yes, that includes witness depositions where there was no opportunity for cross-examination). Fortunately, that’s not the way court cases are decided. But just you keep on voting and I’m confident we can get there. Progress. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/92 "2009-10-03T13:15:39Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > Polanski presumably did not commit rape, as judged by a court of law, because he is presumed innocent unless he is convicted of rape. True in a court of law. But an internet discussion is allowed to consider the evidence at hand and draw its own conclusions. > [@](#): > > So Polanski must publicly claim, outside of a legal proceeding, that the girl’s statement is untrue; otherwise, he is guilty of rape? Not “must” - but I find his failure to offer even a hint of denial significant. People who are falsely accused of heinous crimes don’t tend to remain silent, and (as was noted above) he didn’t hesitate to speak out and sue in the much less serious _Vanity Fair_ case. > [@](#): > > I don’t know if Polanski raped her or not, and I’m certainly not claiming to know. I suspect he probably did. Then we agree. I’m not saying I know “beyond reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty” as is the standard in a criminal trial. I think the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests he did. > [@](#): > > \*you \*seem to think that _your_ opinion determines his guilt or innocence. I don’t think that at all. I’m quite happy to let a court have the say in this matter (something Polanski has resisted for 30+ years). I would be most unhappy if that court based its decision on internet discussions, rather than the law, evidence and precedent. > [@](#): > > It must be blissfully easy to let whatever you read on the internet make up your mind for you I suspect you, like nearly everyone else, draw conclusions on many subjects based on evidence that was not presented in a court of law. ---
**Author:** ![fruitbat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@fruitbat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fruitbat)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/93 "2009-10-03T13:46:11Z")
[quote=“I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I, post:60, topic:512238”] _Who_ is a child rapist and how do you know he is one? Certainly Polanski was never convicted of rape. He did plead But it is also possible (although I think it unlikely) that RP did not have sex with the girl \*at all \*yet pled guilty to the least-serious charge in order to avoid the QUOTE] This post is ridiculous and a little bit disturbing. I see people make points all the time that imply that if a court hasn’t found a charge to be true, then who are we to make judgements about innocence or guilt? There are many times I feel the court got it wrong, and there are many clearly guilty people who are never convicted. The Polanski case is especially clear because we have all the testimony from the trial if we care to make our own judgements. I find it completely impossible that he never had sex with the girl, and vanishingly unlikely he didn’t force her exactly as the girl alleges. A reasonable person can look at all the evidence we have and make that conclusion. I find it bizarre to throw up your hands and decide that you can’t possibly surmise he is guilty of anything unless the court finds him guilty of that precise charge. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/94 "2009-10-03T14:44:29Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > That is no stretch at all. Polanski presumably did not commit rape, as judged by a court of law, because he is presumed innocent unless he is convicted of rape. > > So Polanski must publicly claim, outside of a legal proceeding, that the girl’s statement is untrue; otherwise, he is guilty of rape? Holy shit. Now _that’s_ frontier justice. Yippee–kiy–eye–oooooo!!! Go Glenn Beck!! > > I don’t know if the girl lied or not, I don’t know if Polanski raped her or not, and I’m certainly not claiming to know. I suspect he probably did. But that doesn’t mean shit. > > OTOH, \*you \*seem to think that _your_ opinion determines his guilt or innocence. What makes you so sure, Kreskin? Did you hear on cable TV what the verdict is? Who is guilty? How to vote? What clothes to wear this season? Which God to worship? > > It must be blissfully easy to let whatever you read on the internet make up your mind for you (yes, that includes witness depositions where there was no opportunity for cross-examination). Fortunately, that’s not the way court cases are decided. But just you keep on voting and I’m confident we can get there. > > Progress. So, you get on your cardboard soapbox about how the pedophile is innocent until proven guilty, but in doing so you turn the girl into a liar. Is she not worthy of the same presumption of innocence? Why are you so comfortable assuming that she is a perjurer? And yes, that is what you do when you assume, at this stage, that he is not guilty of all she accused him of. ---
**Author:** ![SweetLucy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bcef8e/32.png) [@SweetLucy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SweetLucy)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/95 "2009-10-04T00:20:15Z")
> [@Angry Lurker](#): > > Mate, I entirely agree. Even now in my country it isn’t too wrong to shag thirteen year olds in the right context. And the seventies were far better in this respect, although I were slightly more appropriate age then. I SURE HOPE YOU’RE BEING FACETIOUS, ANGRY LURKER! WHAT COUNTRY DO YOU LIVE IN- AFGHANISTAN? :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/96 "2009-10-04T00:52:58Z")
42 year old man has sex with a 13 year old girl? man needs to spend the rest of his life in prison. ---
**Author:** ![fruitbat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@fruitbat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fruitbat)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/97 "2009-10-04T15:01:45Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > Oh, we can talk about rape until the cows come home. But we can’t call the accused a rapist. Not if we have any ethics, anyway. Roman Polanski is a rapist. Done. Why is it necessary to abdicate our own ability to make judgements and use common sense while we wait for a court to tell us what happened? This is a ridiculous standard in a world where courts compromise all the time. A guy is arrested for a string of burglaries with a particular pattern. He pleads guilty to five of the twelve he is suspected in and is sentenced. I am still going to believe it is highly likely he committed the other seven. I believe OJ is guilty of murder despite the courts not finding it to be so. I am comfortable with that. I am comfortable with calling Polanski a rapist because all of the evidence we have indicates he forcibly raped that girl, and very little indicates otherwise. The courts helped compile that record that allows me to make that judgement, but I don’t need to rely on them to do my thinking for me. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/98 "2009-10-04T23:29:21Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > How about fucking a thirteen year old in the ass while she begs you not to? > > Polanski confessed to doing it, and skipped the country because he was afraid to go to prison. I would hope that you would know that I consider fucking a 13 y.o. girl in her ass _while she begs you not to do_ it rape. A particularly nasty rape. Of course. But that is only an accusation that has not been subject to cross-examination in a court. Therefore, Polanski is not guilty of it. And get this straight because it is _important_: **POLANSKI DID NOT CONFESS TO RAPING A YOUNG GIRL**. But he did plead guilty to unlawful intercourse. Do you understand that that is not the same thing AT ALL? Polanski did indeed “skip the country” and most likely it was because he was afraid of going to prison. I can imagine people fleeing the country to avoid prison because they were 100% innocent of the charges leveled against them, but they felt certain they were going to be convicted anyway. **I DO NOT THINK THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE** , I believe that Polanski was guilty of _something_ with that girl and he didn’t want to face the punishment. But what you, Nancy Grace, and many people posting in this thread don’t seem to understand is that my opinion, or yours, or anybody else’s don’t matter a whit at this point. He is not guilty of something just because you all desperately want him to be. As I have stated upthread, I believe he probably committed statutory rape with that girl and it’s possible that he committed forcible rape, as well as other crimes. However, once again: my opinion or your opinion doesn’t make him a rapist, **and** , statutory rape should never be considered equivalent to forcible rape, a mistake many in this thread continue to make. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/99 "2009-10-04T23:38:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, you get on your cardboard soapbox about how the pedophile is innocent until proven guilty, but in doing so you turn the girl into a liar. Is she not worthy of the same presumption of innocence? Why are you so comfortable assuming that she is a perjurer? And yes, that is what you do when you assume, at this stage, that he is not guilty of all she accused him of. You are, as always, a tool. But you are correct about one thing–a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. That is the sum total of my point here. But obviously that assumption of innocence doesn’t make their accusers liars. That is where you mis-wired brain starts to go south. Also–I never said the girl lied and it is my opinion that she probably didn’t. She needn’t be presumed innocent because she hasn’t been charged with anything. ---
**Author:** ![fruitbat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@fruitbat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fruitbat)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238/100 "2009-10-04T23:40:11Z")
ILM, Let me try a simple question. Do you believe anyone to be guilty of a crime that he or she has not actually been convicted of in a court of law? Do you believe OJ is guilty? Do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-celebrities-supporting-roman-polanskis-release/512238.md?page=6)