You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
MySploofus
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message



Pages:  1    


collioure
Collioure  (Level: 105.1 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 11:37 AM

ROMAN POLANSKI ARRESTED

Director Roman Polanski has been arrested in Zurich, Switzerland, and is being held for extradition to the US.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090927/ap_on_en_mo/eu_switzerland_polanski

redwingchick
Redwingchick  (Level: 91.1 - Posts: 420)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 12:04 PM

Good...throw the rapist in prison.

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.8 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 12:09 PM

Its about time.

felix
Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 3:20 PM

Does he still also answer to Ferret Face?

donden
Donden  (Level: 112.5 - Posts: 2127)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 3:25 PM

All these years. I figured he would just die and then we could canonize him like MJ & TK

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.8 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 3:48 PM

If by canonize, you mean truss him, shove him in a cannon, and then torch him off, I'm all for it.

donden
Donden  (Level: 112.5 - Posts: 2127)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 6:13 PM

Well yes, that too.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 6:16 PM

Sorry, folks but it is ridiculous to retry him at this late juncture. The documentary suggests the girls mother played a part in the whole modeling incident and it was consentual. I realize the age of the girl at the time, but now she even wants the whole affair put to rest. He did serve time in prison. It is like trying someone twice for the same crime. I am not surprised at the comments on here and the people commenting. I am standing my ground and they should let Polanski alone he has suffered enough. By the way the woman he had sex with has publicly forgiven him. Give it a rest.

donden
Donden  (Level: 112.5 - Posts: 2127)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 6:38 PM

Sure!

redwingchick
Redwingchick  (Level: 91.1 - Posts: 420)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 6:39 PM

1. There is no such thing as "consensual" sex when one of the people is 13. Sorry, but they are not able to foresee the consequences of their actions and cannot make a decision like that.

2. He was an adult. I don't care if that girl got naked and jumped on him...he knew better.

3. He is a pedophile. 42 days under psychiatric evaluation is not good enough.

This man should NOT be let go. He is a child molesting pervert.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 6:48 PM

(You guys are going to hit me if I mention Elvis here, aren't you?)

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.8 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 6:52 PM

So Bobo, if you think 13 is an acceptable age for consensual sex, where do you draw the line? Is 12 the limit? Is it ok for an 11 year old? 10? 9?

I'm curious.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 6:54 PM

He is also a 76 year old man and it is a 30 year old crime. The victim is not interested in having serve anymore time. He also lost his wife and unborn child in a tragic saga in American history by the Manson family. The act was committed not long after losing his wife (Sharon Tate) whom he adored. He is also a gifted cinematic pioneer and it is a high profile case which was handled unjustly by the judge. If you saw the documentary the prosecutors went on record saying he should not be tried again. I think it was wrong for him to flee from justice but given the circumstance of a corrupt judge I can understand. France is already trying to negotiate his release and US has not even decided whether he will be extradited so keep your panties on. This is no ordinary rape case and if that escapes you folks so sorry.

redwingchick
Redwingchick  (Level: 91.1 - Posts: 420)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 6:57 PM

I don't wear panties.

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.8 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 6:59 PM

There is no statute of limitations on crime.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 6:59 PM

Actually me either. LOL

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 7:10 PM

Whatever he is not going to be treated the same anyway and you people know it so keep it up I said what I had to say and that is it. How is that for a run on sentence.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 8:07 PM

As I noted in "Being Part of the Solution" thread but the rest of you already corrected the unclear thinker

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.8 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 8:14 PM

Like it matters.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 8:31 PM

You got that absolutely right Lodi it doesn't matter. Least of all to me.

pepperdoc
Pepperdoc  (Level: 152.5 - Posts: 4286)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 9:24 PM

Okay. I've now read that article two times and the one thing it doesn't explain, or I'm not getting, is why now?
Who was behind his arrest? I thought it said he had been in Switzerland before, why wasn't he arrested before?
It said the US started seeking his arrest in 2005. I'm just not connecting the dots.

The timeline, and I'm paraphrasing is:
1969 Sharon Tate and others killed
1977 incident with underage girl
1978 he pleaded guilty and then fled the country (one lawyer said had he stayed the sentence probably would have been 16 months to 3 years in prison but apparently the judge reneged on the deal?)
At some point, the girl sued and they settled out of court and now she supports dropping the case

Maybe I was making an assumption, but I thought he had traveled around Europe before. I don't know which countries have what kind of extradition laws, but I just don't understand the timing.


bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 9:27 PM

I know he filmed the movie The Pianist in Eastern Europe I believe Romania. He has a home Gstaad and goes there regularly, I really don't know what the deal unless some new prosecutor or judge in LA has a hard on for him. Pardon my french.

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.8 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 9:28 PM

As I understood it, he was in France and they have limited extradition laws. But once he traveled into a country that did not, he was apprehended.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 9:37 PM

He has been in Switzerland since he left the US he has a home there. The articles I read suggest it is politically motivated, the swiss want to gain favor with US. In any case he has not been extradited and who knows how long or what will be decided. I think that this subject was brought up once before and had the same response from me. So that is all I have to say, if anyone is interested there is a really good documentary on the whole story.

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.8 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 9:41 PM

The one I read says he's been living in France for the past 30 years, but went to Switzerland to receive an award at the Zurich Film Festival.

Anyone interested in reading the grand jury transcript of his crime:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 9:42 PM

The 2008 documentary which won awards is called Wanted and Desired. It chronicles the whole story of the arrest and the circumstances and the legalities of the case. Extensive interviews with prosecutor and Polanski's attorney. The corruption of the trial and judge etc. It won awards at Cannes Film Festival and it examines the crime and all the consequences surrounding Roman Polanski, also a bit about his life prior with Sharon Tate. There are also interviews with the victim who is the one most eager to put the whole thing behiind her.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 11:05 PM

I just don't get what the arrest "does" on a practical level. It isn't like he's currently a danger to society and we are removing a threat. It isn't like we are going to "reform" his character. It isn't like we are bringing justice and closure to the victim who doesn't even care about it anymore. What does this arrest "do" other than send a social message to the wealthy or something that you can't just skip town because of who you are (not that I know as much about it as you guys do)? I just don't get how all this time and money that's going to be spent now betters society? This is a question.....I truly would like to understand.

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.8 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 11:10 PM

I think its being held accountable for a crime, nothing more, nothing less.

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 11:22 PM

I too am wondering about the extradition laws. Double jeopardy is not legal in the US. If the girl wants it dropped, what is too these irate people?

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.8 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 11:37 PM

If I'm reading correctly, he was arrested and tried, and on the eve of his sentencing, he fled the U.S. So his recent arrest was most likely not on the child rape charges, but failure to appear or something like that.

And a crime is a crime. If my brother deliberately burns my house down, its arson, a crime. If I ask the police and the prosecutor not to prosecute my brother because I forgive him, its irrelevant because a crime was still committed.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 27th Sep '09 11:55 PM

"I think its being held accountable for a crime, nothing more, nothing less."

I know you have a seperate conversation going on with Bigmama, but regarding your comment to me, I guess I'm wondering what then being held accountable will do positively for society? Alot of salaries are going to be paid on this.....

My confusion in part stems from situations like the following: I have a friend who keyed a BMW probably ten years ago. I didn't report his vandalism at the time, and I'm sure the statute of limitations are long past on that crime. Still, we could as a society change the laws and bring this man to "justice" out of principle.....but isn't he a much different person now? Would it make much sense to do so?

I mean, I guess that's what you are saying...we should prosecute out of principle?

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.8 - Posts: 2144)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 12:04 AM

There is no statute of limitations on crime. There is a statute of limitations if you wanted to sue him to reimburse you for the cost of fixing your car. That is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. I can explain those more, if you would like.

I don't know what the prosecutors are thinking at this point - your question should be directed to them. But generally, anyone who fails to show up for court, whether it be a summons for jury duty, or for your own trial, a warrant is issued for your arrest for failure to appear. That is the case whether you are a night shift worker at the local mill or a world famous celebrity.



lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.8 - Posts: 2144)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 12:09 AM

Additionally, I guess it means that its a deterrent for anyone who doesn't want to get sentenced for a crime. If everyone could just skip out on court and cross state lines or flee to a different country, and then wait a certain amount of time until they figure the court decided they were "a different person," then there wouldn't be very many people who would be held accountable for their crimes.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 12:10 AM

Lol, I'm not a lawyer, but I think there is a statute of limitations on crime. Where's TSK?? I don't know Wikipedia is confusing......if that's the case I have lots of crimes I'd like to prosecute, but was told by lawyers I couldn't.

At any rate, very factual, I will ask the prosecutors of this case when I get a chance.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 12:11 AM

I just saw your second post:

I see your point.

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.8 - Posts: 2144)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 12:12 AM

If there was a statute of limitations on crime, how could we prosecute priests for molesting children 30 years ago? Were you trying to get someone prosecuted for a crime or make them pay for something they did to you? Those are 2 different situations and one does have a statute of limitations.

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.8 - Posts: 2144)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 12:15 AM

There's a key phrase you just used, Jeremy. You said that "I would like to prosecute." No individual can prosecute someone for a crime. That is something the State does. If you went to an attorney and wanted to do something to someone, and it had been over two years ago, they probably told you the statute of limitations had passed.

Criminal courts: State vs. Lodi - no statute of limitation
Civil Court: Jeremy vs. Lodi - differs in each state by general a 2 year statute of limitations.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 12:41 AM

Oh, I wasn't trying to do anything with money. I was trying to report a crime to a federal agency. I called the federal number for that crime. They said the statute of limitations had expired on that crime, end of story. Like I said, I'm not a lawyer, I'm just telling you what I was told about it. Maybe I got someone who didn't know what they were talking about.....I could try to report the federal crime again and see what happens, I would love justice for these upper middle class well respected by society criminals.

Googling is making me think you are wrong. I think I will try and rereport this crime and see what happens.



lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.8 - Posts: 2144)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 12:50 AM

Yeah, there are minor crimes that have a statute of limitations. Big ones - murder, crimes against children, etc., do not. Crimes like DUI most likely do because they are so hard to prove after a certain length of time. I'm used to working with the major crimes. The cases on which I've worked would give you nightmares.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 1:02 AM

I guess, but I find the distinction somewhat superficial in this case, since someone almost died as a result of their actions.....but that's life.

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.8 - Posts: 2144)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 1:08 AM

That sucks that someone wouldn't pursue it, if its that serious. The prosecutors look at all the variables to see if they consider the case prosecutable or not. A lot of people get away with crime because the prosecutors just don't feel they could amass enough evidence to win a conviction.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 2:57 AM

That's the funny part, when describing "what happened" to the people in charge, they just wanted to know the straight facts, what particular crime was committed, which federal law in particular was broken, not who might've gotten hurt or how. In other words, no questions were asked about the particulars to decide whether it was worth pursuing or not.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 3:53 AM

Believe TSK quit. All articles I have read say he has always stuck close too home in France. Friends warned him not to go to Switzerland but he brushed it off. Looks like he is another one who thinks he is important enough to be above the law. Bring him back and toss his old butt in jail

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 105.1 - Posts: 9952)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 4:26 AM

I don't believe there is any statue of limitations question in this case. It has been tried, he was convicted and he fled just before sentencing.

I too wonder why he was arrested at this time.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 105.1 - Posts: 9952)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 5:48 AM

Bobo, I just read for the first time today an account of Polanski's crime. Clearly this was hardly as innocent as you make it out to be. Indeed he was the instigator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski

mplaw51
Mplaw51  (Level: 179.8 - Posts: 1582)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 6:27 AM

It sounds as though he was the instigator, Andy, I agree. It seems crazy that he ran off because the plea bargain was so generous, or was I reading it incorrectly? The rape was downgraded ALOT. He sure must have been in a terrible place to do that. Rape is about power not sex and its foul and disgusting. He'll just have to man up now, he failed to do that many years ago. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. Taking off is another charge on top of it all isn't it?

The media will be all over the woman Samantha, a double whammy for her, what a shame.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 105.1 - Posts: 9952)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 10:30 AM

Now that I reflect a bit on this, where was Jack Nicholson when all this took place?

asor
Asor  (Level: 156.0 - Posts: 589)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 10:41 AM

Jack Nicholson was out of town.

I say let Polanski rot in jail. Thirteen is 13 is 13, regardless of how much money one pays, regardless of how talented and accomplished one may be, regardless of how much time has passed, regardless of what personal hardships and horrors one has suffered. There is no excuse for raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old child. Period.

The shame is that so many people would defend him.

redwingchick
Redwingchick  (Level: 91.1 - Posts: 420)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 11:10 AM

Bobolicious said:
"The act was committed not long after losing his wife (Sharon Tate) whom he adored."

Sorry, but she was killed in 69 and he raped this child in 77. 8 years is "not long"?

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.8 - Posts: 2144)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 12:20 PM

I read that Jack was out of town but Anjelica Huston, Jack's then-girlfriend, was there at the time.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 1:11 PM

I am not going to comment further because Andy you brought this up the last time. I said what I had to say, also they have not decided to extradite as yet. He was sentenced and did some time in segregation in prison. It was a lite sentence and then the judge ordered him back after the judge renegged on the original plea agreement. The same usual people will of course disagree with me and whatever. The victim doesn't want any part of it. They may very well return him and give him probation or whatever he isn't going to get a life sentence so quit salivating and put your lynch ropes away.
t

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 1:33 PM

AP has an article about it on Yahoo. He is fighting his arrest and extradition and may get bail in Switzerland. The judge in US, has agreed that his trial was fraught with misconduct. Anyway read the article, and my opinion stands.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 105.1 - Posts: 9952)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 2:17 PM

Bobo, I'm not dying to put Polanski in jail and I was not aware that the judge reneged on a plea bargain he had accepted. At the same he did not do much jail time, and you have misrepresented other facts of the case here bigtime. This appears to have been a bona fide statutory rape instigated by Polanski himself.

tuzilla
Tuzilla  (Level: 134.2 - Posts: 3779)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 2:32 PM

Yes, this was heinous, and yes he should not have been given the chance to flee 30 years ago. BUT...

...even the girl, who is now in her forties, Has said enough already, drop it, give it a rest, quite dredging this up for air. She has joined the voices telling the Swss to drop it. The only people truly interested in it at this point are those who stand to profit from all the fallout surrounding it

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 2:39 PM

I quite agree Steve, and NO one will profit from it. Maybe I didn't qualify my earlier statement. Not saying what he did was right by any means. He was already tried and sentenced and through misconduct on judges part was about to get additional time when he fled. I think we have belabored the point enough so I end it here. I admire his work as a film maker and not what he did, although many right here in this country get a slap on the hand for same thing. 30 years later it with him living in another country is ludicrous.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 2:47 PM

I am sure it makes Steve ecstatic that you validate his opinion. Letting a child rapist stay free no many how many years later or how important he and other think he is -WRONG

http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/09/28/roman-polanski-photo-timeline?slide=2

tuzilla
Tuzilla  (Level: 134.2 - Posts: 3779)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 4:07 PM

You bet I was dancing around the room when I saw the post. How clever of you to realized that I would be so raptured. Open the door and free all the rapists.

Bottom line, Linda, how many taxpayer dollars are you willing to commit to the extradiction process, and if it is successful, to the appeal process that will follow? Do you, who so often bemoans the spending of a single tax dollar, really think this is the time and the cause?

I have a former coworker who was convicted of 12 counts of statutory rape with a person under the age of 13. If he never draws another free breath, I will not be disappointed. But I am, as are so many other people, not interested in trying to rectify things in a 30-years old case on a 77-year old rapist when it will cost millions of dollars and he will probably still not see prison before he passes away from old age. The French, Swiss and several other countries could have handed him over dozens of times in the past 30 years. Why it comes up now is a mystery to us all.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 4:30 PM

It is costing money to keep OJ in jail too and he just lost yet another appeal but that is where he belongs. and don't know many sane people who believe he should be free. Prisoners and trials and appeals are expensive but the alternative of these people not paying for a crime SUCKS

daveguth
Daveguth  (Level: 254.4 - Posts: 1636)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 7:12 PM

Interesting discussion.

Two very powerful arguments for extradiction and prosecution:

1) He committed a crime that we all agree is detestable and should be dealt with in the strongest manner possible.
2) No one should be exempt from the law just because they have more money, allowing them to hire better lawers and/or quickly flee the country.

Several arguments against:

1) He has already done some time (though not very much)
2) The judge reneged on the original plea bargain, bringing "fairness" into question. (I wonder what would have happened if he stuck around and appealed.)
3) He's had to "pay" for the crime (in a way) by avoiding the U.S. and many other countries, and by just having to rehash the whole thing for 30 years. No doubt, he has continually heard from plenty of very angry people calling him a criminal and pervert.
4) He had to deal with the death of his wife and his unborn child in likely the most bizarre murder case in the history of Los Angeles. For those who have lost a spouse and/or child, this is not just a next-day, or next-year trauma, but a lifetime trauma. Not an excuse, but a circumstance confirming this is a complicated individual, i.e., one who could both contribute to society and committ such a horrible crime.
5) He was forced to live in a Jewish ghetto in Poland in during WWII, where he was separated from his parents after they were sent to concentration camps. His mother died while in a camp when he was 10. Again, not an excuse, just more background about this perplexing individual.
6) He has not re-offended.
7) He has contributed greatly to society--his film "The Pianist" is an extremely well received film on the subject of the Holocaust.
8) The victim wants the case dismissed.
9) He is now a much older man who does not appear to be any danger to society.

I believe NONE of the arguments against, on their own, negates the importance of the arguments for extradiction. However, there are (relatively) rare occasions that the judicial system makes exceptions given additional information. I think this is one of those situations where you have to look at all of the circumstances and make a very tough choice. Yes, there is a "cost" to ignoring those first two arguments, i.e., letting a criminal go free just because he had the lawyers/money to pull of his escape. I just think there's an even greater cost of pursuing someone under these unusual circumstances. (By the way, not basing this on a "9-2 score"--this is based on the content of those 9 arguments.) There are plenty of cases where the two "for" arguments are relevant, but the nine "against" arguments don't exist. Spend our valuable resources on those creeps.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 7:31 PM

In your long and detailed by the number post you summed up everything I wanted to communicate and then some. You did it and hopefully will not be attacked for it as I have. By the way you people who posted negatively do not change my opinion or my posts even an inch nor will you ever. Why can't we have a difference of opinion without rancor and attacking in numbers the person who has the minority opinion? Thank you Daveguth

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 7:34 PM

Just as an aside Tsk is still a member of sploofus. He is on my friend list, and his last login was yesterday. I think he opted out of Salty Dog posting for obvious reasons. I can understand why.

tuzilla
Tuzilla  (Level: 134.2 - Posts: 3779)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 7:45 PM

Polanski is guilty of a heinous crime and should have spent years in the slam, but this will not be as simple of a thing before or after extradition as some of the parking lot shallow reports from fox and a few other sources fluffy it up to be. It will cost a lot of money and may mean more years in court before resolution. And the resolution is far from certain.

At the end of his trial he had reached a plea agreement with the judge, whose overall conduct in the case is in question. Polanski was sent to prison for 42 days for evaluation prior to sentencing. He was pleading guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse". When he finished the evaluation, he learned the judge planned to renege on their deal. That is when he fled to France.

Sources, including some judges say there is a case to overturn the entire trial. That would mean a whole new media circus event. And all because, as some sources say, the Swiss are trying to kiss up to the U.S. after a series of bilateral spats over tax evasion and wealthy Americans stashing money at Swiss banking giant UBS AG.

This is not going to be the slam dunk fox and other want to pretend it will be. It will be ugly and expensive.

So while he is guilty as sin, and should have spent years in the slam, this is not worth the pain and expense to pursue any further.

goddess28
Goddess28  (Level: 92.6 - Posts: 5236)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 7:46 PM

Dave....wow. Thank you. I have been debating on whether to post to this thread for the same reasons that Bobo is talking about. While it would please us all for this man to pay for what he did, it does not please the victim or serve any purpose for us. We will pay for it, he wont serve time and it will bring up bad memories for the victim and her family. It just doesn't make sense.

Linda....OJ got caught and was prosecuted right here on American soil....had he run for 30 years (and may have had he not gotten away with murder, probably thought this was cake compared to that) some may not care about him either. Though I did thoroughly enjoy him going to jail.

Bobo...right on girl!

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 7:49 PM

LOL if anyone loves an argument it is TSK as he is good. He got angry because of some of the terms which he said did not permit the deletions. at the time he joined and had signed nothing Never quite understood exactly his argment but sure it had merit beccause he is/was an attorney. His claim was in part that he wanted his quizzes deleted. Hardly ever agreed with him but enjoyed him a bunch miss him here as he was NEVER vapid or insipd like some-no names of course

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insipid

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insipid







caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 7:55 PM

Perhaps when the gent finally passses he wil be stuffed and on display for humaity. Incidentally, thoroughly "The Pianist' but he should have directed it from a prison cell

goddess28
Goddess28  (Level: 92.6 - Posts: 5236)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 7:56 PM

Rather see OJ stuffed.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 7:59 PM

Why would Fox fluff up Polanski or the extradition or lack thereof? Sounds like better material for the Huffington Post or MSNBC as he makes a wonderful victim

goddess28
Goddess28  (Level: 92.6 - Posts: 5236)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 8:00 PM

LOL

goddess28
Goddess28  (Level: 92.6 - Posts: 5236)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 8:01 PM

LOL

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 8:02 PM

Dave, kudos on a rational post wih no slams at anyone or any entity

asor
Asor  (Level: 156.0 - Posts: 589)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 8:11 PM

All good points, DG. For me, though, nothing comes close to the weight of these two things: the nature of his crime and the fact the he fled the country rather than serve his sentence. This is a man who raped and sodomized a little girl; everything else fades into the background for me against that fact. I realize he is likely to escape a prison sentence, but I still would like to see him brought before the courts to account for his actions. He has led a very comfortable--even celebrated--life, when he should have been treated as a pariah. I hope there will be stiff consequences for his flight from justice, though I realize that may not come to pass.


jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 9:25 PM

Yeah, I work with 13 year old girls every day.

If I were her mom, I don't know how I would have had the strength to not take the law in my own hands.

alvandy
Alvandy  (Level: 229.7 - Posts: 7573)
Mon, 28th Sep '09 10:10 PM

I almost forgot that the young girl in this sordid case has a link to York, Pennsylvania!

Samantha {Gailey] Geimer, was the victim in question. [ Polanski was convicted of molestation in 1977].
Samantha Gailey was originally from York.

She was the daughter of a prominent York lawyer [Jack Gailey] and actress Susan Gailey. She spent the first part of her life in York living in the city and she attended our Lincoln Elementary and Edgar Fahs Smith Middle School.
The Gaileys divorced by 1977, Geimer moved with her mother to the San Fernando Valley in California.

In March, 1977, Geimer was 13 and aspired to be an actress like her mother. She had thought that meeting Polanski might provide her with a break.
Instead, Polanski gave her wine and Quaaludes and sexually assaulted her.

She now lives in Hawaii. She kept her identity secret for many years but decided to go public in response to what she claims were erroneous media reports about her and her mother.

Here is a link to a local newspaper story with more background.

http://www.yorkblog.com/yorktownsquare/2009/05/roman-polanski.html







collioure
Collioure  (Level: 105.1 - Posts: 9952)
Tue, 29th Sep '09 3:38 AM

Of course, we should have known!

And if she had consumed more peppermint patties, this never would have happened.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 105.1 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 30th Sep '09 1:14 PM

Now Whoopi Goldberg has weighed in.

She says she knows it wasn't "rape-rape."

Whoopi should stop smoking those funny cigarettes. Seems it was "rape-rape" at a minimum, maybe even "rape-rape-rape."

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Wed, 30th Sep '09 1:31 PM


asor
Asor  (Level: 156.0 - Posts: 589)
Wed, 30th Sep '09 2:37 PM

That was absolutely stomach turning. And notice how Whoopie turns the conversation to a girl who's 14 (hey, that's almost 15, which is kinda like 16!). She wasn't 14, she was 13--and that's a whole lot like 12.

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.8 - Posts: 2144)
Wed, 30th Sep '09 3:59 PM

And he was 44.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 105.1 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 30th Sep '09 4:14 PM

Sigh is right on, Linda.

I had just read about Whoopi's remarks. They're worse when you listen to them.


Pages:  1    



Copyright © 2003-2016 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus