Sorry, I may have confused myself. I was under the impression that the judge wasn’t going to accept the plea, in which case they would be back at square one. If it went to trial, it would go on the more serious charges.
So, if a victim’s/witness’s out of court statement that was never subjected to corss-examination is compelling, there’s no need for a trial?
Is it your position that an accused should have to prove his innocence?
Thank you. In case there is doubt, you can read the girl’s testimony here: The Smoking Gun: Public Documents, Mug Shots and The Smoking Gun: Public Documents, Mug Shots
He pled guilty and then fled the country. Why are people struggling with this issue and attempting to defend this scumbag?
Dude, I think it’s you that is struggling. Are you even paying attention? He did not plead guilty to or admit that he did most of what she said he did to her in those links. He admitted that they had sex. That’s it - a crime on it’s own, but hardly the same as the sum of the charges.
I believe the plea was accepted but the judge was going to lay down a tougher sentence. RP didn’t want to serve more time so he ran.
Right and who do you think is more likely to lie in this situation? A man knowing he illegally had sex with a child and is claiming it was consensual, or the thirteen-year-old girl who said she repeatedly said no and did not want it to continue? This is the classic case of a predator grooming his victim, in this case by using his status and photography to lure her in. The only thing I’m “struggling” with is why people are defending a rapist pedophile simply because he’s well known. :dubious:
I’m starting to think that, too, but it’s not clear based on what I’ve read. Much of what’s out there now is second hand reporting and hardly reliable. I will look for the answer but woudl gladly accept any direction.
Having never met either, I don’t know.
Why have trials if we have an apparently reliable witness statement?
“Classic”, eh? Who are you, Nancy Grace? Chris Hanson?
No. You’ve implied Polanski confessed to the more unsavory claims of drugging and sexual assault. He has not.
So you’re saying the drugging and sexual assault claims are more “unsavory” than the fact that a 43-year-old man fucked a 13-year-old girl? I think that says it all. :rolleyes:
Just curious.
Beside the actual sex act itself, has Polanski every made comments based on any of the other stuff.
Because IF (big asssed IF there to be sure) if I was some 43 year old guy that had sex with a 13 year old then fleed the country with criminal charges pending, you can bet my ass I be doing a few things in “exile” for the next 3 decades or so. I’d be shouting to anyone that would listen that it was consensual, or that I was framed, or I was drunk/high off my ass, or something !
Has he ever bothered to deny any of the other aspects of this or offer an excuse, no matter how poor?
Okay, let’s set aside the bulk of the horror. Didn’t he still plead guilty to having sex with a 13 year old? Then he fled the country.
Huh, call me crazy but I think we should have hunted him down and hauled his ass back to this country long ago, extradition laws be damned.
Even if it’s all lies, a vast conspiracy if you will, he is guilty of fleeing from justice and an example should be made.
Edit: I can’t post about this and not mention that I think Roman Polanski is a sick fuck. I think he did it and I hope he is punished severely.
From the Wiki page on Roman Polanski:
So, Whole Bean, what exactly is your point? Sure, he only pleaded guilty to the lesser crime, and it’s easy for posters here to shout “he did A, B, C,” when he’s only “admitted” to doing C. Fine. The victim still says he did all that stuff to her and has never waivered on that (as far as I know). Part of what pisses people off about this case is that he was given a deal (in part to avoid making the girl testify) and he threw it back in everyone’s face by running from a slap on the wrist.
He didn’t run from a slap on the wrist. He agreed to a slap on the wrist with the D.A. and the judge was supposedly going to give him a harsh sentence. He ran from the harsh sentence.
Maybe we have different opinions on “harsh.” From what I understand, he served 42 days of a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. The deal was for probation and time served, but in the mean time he was seen cavorting with young girls in Europe. This pissed off the judge who was going to make him serve the remaining 48 days. Harsh? You be the judge.
Note, that this isn’t in the Wiki article. I read it in some other new piece about the situation.
From what I recall, it wasn’t just the 48 extra days in the psych hospital (which would not have been harsh) but many years in real prison.
Uh… aren’t they? Having sex with a 13 year old girl is certainly unsavory. Drugging her first seems much more unsavory. Drugging her, and then forcing yourself on her seems hugely more unsavory. I’m not sure exactly what you think that “says.”
I meant that defending the guy since he never admitted to drugging and raping is a little insignificant in the grand scheme of things, especially since he did admit to having intercourse with a teenage girl who was 30 years younger than himself.
Here is where I read the bit about the extra 48 days.
In reality, though, we’ll never know because the loser didn’t stick around.
I believe he could get up to twenty years on the unlawful sex (sex with a minor) charge - it’s in the plea I cited above. He thought he was going to be getting much less time (on the prosecutions recomendation).
Look, if he did what he’s accused of doing, well, bury him under the jail. I am just stepping to remind folks that, contray to increasing common implications, he has not admitted to the, yes, more unsavory charges.
yep. that’s what I’m saying. so what does it say?