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.
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?
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.
What is “horseshit” is your characterization of the argument.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
True in a court of law. But an internet discussion is allowed to consider the evidence at hand and draw its own conclusions.
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.
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.
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.
I suspect you, like nearly everyone else, draw conclusions on many subjects based on evidence that was not presented in a court of law.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
