Sharon Tate's Sister: Sex Was 'Consensual,' Polanski A 'Good Guy' (VIDEO)

(AP Text, Scroll for Video)

NEW YORK - Debra Tate, the sister of Roman Polanski's second wife, actress Sharon Tate, says Polanski is brilliant and a "good guy" and she doesn't think her former brother-in-law can get a fair trial in the United States.

Tate tells NBC's "Today" show on Wednesday that the U.S. justice system is broken.

Polanski was arrested Saturday in Zurich. The U.S. has been seeking his extradition for having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

Tate says Polanski did not forcibly have sex with the girl, calling it a "consensual matter."

Sharon Tate was murdered in Los Angeles in 1969 by followers of Charles Manson. She was eight months pregnant.

Debra Tate says it's been a devastating few weeks for her, with her sister's killer, Susan Atkins, dying Sept. 24 and now her late sister's husband jailed.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Get HuffPost Entertainment On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[Fudgefase]

Yes, consensual sex usually involves drink, drugs and listening to a child say no and try to get away before you rape her anyway.
Not.

[Jeffreygeez]

What could this women know, she was not there, was she? Who cares about her opinion. Ted Bundy was a nice guy also. So? I am not equating this with what Mr. Bundy did, but am making a point, either you are responsible forever for crimes , or just in the first few weeks. What is it?

I am sure Roman is a good guy, so what? Again if it was this womens daughter would she say that it was consensual? no. That is unless her daugher was a grown woman who no longer gave a s about this Roman. Roman bet that time heels all wounds, he is almost , almost correct.Not. L

[krw64]

are you kidding me? here is someone who advocates for the rights of victims, and in the same breath excuses a perpetrator of a victimizing criminal act. for what reason? consent or not, this is still a criminal act, and quite frankly, not too long ago, there was a popular word used to describe individuals who covered over, excused, and or otherwise aided a criminal in escaping punishment for said crimes...the word is accessory. You can nitpick all you want, proving at times that ignorance is not only bliss, but sometimes much more palatable than the truth, but regardless, polanski committed a crime, no way to condone it, no way to excuse it, and one has to wonder about the "mental stability", not only of miss tate, but of that strange breed of individual that would argue in defense of either of them. debate is always a good thing, but i believe debate can and often does deteriorate into sessions full of my thoughts are better than yours, my way or the highway, or if ya cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen...there, now that we have gotten all the cliches out of the way, the only fact that matters is a criminal act going unpunished because, once again, the rich and powerful prefer to stay that way..at all costs! the last post was the most simple, direct, and correct. jail is where he belongs, why should there even be a debate?

[zahara2603]

Why on earth is she defending him?

POLANSKI MUST FACE JUSTICE - ART DOES NOT EXCUSE RAPE

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/art-does-not-excuse-rape-polanski-must-face-justice

[brady61995]

shes rediculous and out of her mind. consent with a 13 yr old? what is wrong with this woman.

[sunfox]

What's with people saying the sex was consensual or it wasn't "rape-rape".

I read the testimony. The 13 year old girl said she was afraid. She was given alcohol by Polanski. That's illegal. She was given a qualude by Polanski. That's illegal. Polanski performed oral and vaginal sex on the 13 year old girl. Illegal. When he asked if she was on the pill she said "no", so he decided to have anal sex with her. Illegal.

This is not right. It's criminal. How can people defend his actions? I'm surprised at Ms Tate, Whoopie Goldberg, Debra Winger, and many others who defend this man. Would any of them be okay with a man in his 40's having sex with their 13 year old daughter, grandaughter, sister, or whatever the relation may be?

This is so very wrong on every level imaginable.

[respectingothers]

you are so right!

[free-thinking]

Do you mean the grand jury testimony by the victim? That is, the victim who wants Polanski released and the case dismissed? Is that what you read? Which is the testimony that doesn't fit some of the physical evidence? And it doesn't match the testimony of other people in key details who were at the home that night?

Try reading Polanski's own testimony, the house's caretaker's testimony, Angelica Huston's testimony, and the details of the medical exam for rape that occurred that night. Do all that before judging someone solely based on a 13/14-year-old's coached and gap-filled grand jury testimony. Defendants have rights to due process in this country, so do not rush to judgment in this case based on your own incomplete knowledge of the details.

The more you know about this case, the more you agree with the victim that Polanski should be freed.

[weatherwaxx]

Boy, this woman is desperate for attention.

[writerwannabe]

It terrifies me that there are people out there that think a 13 year old girl is "sexual" and can give consent to sex with an older man. This is a CHILD. End of story. This man took advantage of a child, even if she didn't say no - in what kind of society would anyone think it is okay for a grown man to have sex with a CHILD - I think this whole discussion is appalling - this man committed a crime - ran away from the consequences of his actions and now should be held accountable - I don't care how talented he is - does that mean that there is a set of rules for him and a different set for those rapists who don't happen to be talented - its disgusting - the justice system is broken when a man who rapes a CHILD gets away with it.

[joependleton]

It's a good thing you happened along. Would you mind showing the chicken which end of the torch he's supposed to light?

[gjohntheterrible]

Battery powered torches have been around for a long time Joe, time for you to graduate from the stone age.

[free-thinking]

Has it occurred to you that maybe Polanski didn't know she was 13-years-old? Everyone, even the police, say she was tall and looked like she was 16 to 18-years-old back when this occurred. The photos taken of her then even back this up. Polanski's questions to her about being on the pill seem very odd if he thought she was just 13-years-old, but not odd at all if he thought she was 16 to 18-years-old.

[rimofheaven]

How come when ever the system is doesn't work the way certain segments of our society would like it to, it must be broken? When OJ walked away a free man, the system was broken. When Hillary lost all of the caucuses, the system was broken. When Obama was elected president, the nation was going to hell in a hand basket, and the system was broken. Now, Mr. Polanski is facing justice, and the system is broken. Why?

[GrizzlyBowman]

I don't support the assertion that teenagers are unable to give consent for their actions. Teenagers are *quite* sexual. I remember: I was one a short time ago. When older men gifted with erections again through the magic of Viagra, Cialis and the like say of their sex life "It's like we're teenagers again", they're not being entirely metaphorical. Teenagers do a lot of screwing. Sorry if that's inconvenient for people?

I think this is more of an issue for the older generations because they had to live through more puritanical eras. But a lot of my generation grew up in broken homes and we had to grow up faster. Plus, we're better educated. We've seen the Sex Ed. films. And the things in the Sex Ed. films shown in better clarity and context in Hollywood. We have the Internet. Answers to questions are clicks away. So are visual aids.

True, this happened in the 1970s and not 1990+, but that's beside the point. The point is this: If someone is educated and has the mental capacity to make decisions for them self, then it doesn't matter how old their partner was--all that mattered is that there was consent. If there's consent, there's no rape. You can't convict juveniles as adults and then say that they don't have the capacity to make decisions like an adult. That's inconsistent and absurd. Every person has to be evaluated individually.

[gjohntheterrible]

So I guess when she told him no it really didn't matter since she was a teenager and she was quite "sexual"?

[GrizzlyBowman]

Show me where she was quoted or recorded saying no.

[GrizzlyBowman]

To be fair, I see where it was mentioned that she said "No, I don't want to do this" on http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26153425-5013479,00.html

But who were the witnesses? It gives no mention.

[OGoodGrief]

Roman Polanski needs to man up and face what he did. There is no defense of a 40 year old man giving drugs and alcohol to a 13 year old girl and then having sex with her. It wouldn't matter if she had said yes; he was old enough to know what he was doing was morally wrong and against the law.

I wonder why the 13 year old's parents didn't go with her to the photoshoot. My 18 year old did her senior photoshoot with a photographer that was a friend of mine. He was in his late 40's and I was at the shoot. At the point where he shot her in a sex kitten pose w/her cleavage hanging out, I stepped in and moved the shoot to something more appropriate. While I respected him as an artist and believe the human body is beautiful, there are boundries that should not be crossed; as a parent, it's my responsibility to enforce that and protect my child.

What happened to Polanski's victim's parents? Why didn't they attend the shoot? Why did they put their daughter in that situation? If they couldn't go, why didn't they send a friend or relative? I don't care how much a person thinks they know someone, you can't always trust people. Polanski proved that point in the worst way.

[GrizzlyBowman]

Morals are subjective and the law exists to serve them.

If someone says yes I want to do that, you can't say no, I believe that you should not have a right to say that you want to do that. That's against the philosophy of individual liberty. If I had told my parents I was going to have sex with a girl when I was 15, they would have tried to stop me too. But I was smart enough not to tell them because I know they'd have the same opinion you have.

Guess what? I knew what a condom was, didn't get an STD, and I had fun enjoying my Human sexuality. I'm tired of this "protecting people from victimless crimes" mentality. Let people make their own decisions and butt out with your unethical morals.

[free-thinking]

How do you know he knew she was 13-years-old at the time? Everyone then says she looked a lot older. Although he did testify he knew in court, that was a part of his plea bargain agreement, so he had to say it even if it wasn't true.

[Steph55]

This woman is sick!!!! Sure Polanski lost his mother to the Holocaust, by the grace of God and good people he survived, then the Manson gang ruined what was left of his faith in human beings, I am sure. But to turn into a pedophilic monster is not excuseable! For any reason!

Ms. Tate, has had to live with the obscene horror of her sisters death and what was done to a tiny not quite yet born baby, a child 8 1/2 months old ready for delivery......I can't even begin to imagine what her interior life is like, but.......­....condon­ing the choice of horror inflicted upon a 13 yr old child whose life was irretrieveably altered and shamed by Polanski's actions will NOT make her feel better.

Exactly why she can't see that is something I only hope does not have to do with the desensitizing of people who have suffered horror after horror.

It is the COURAGE to withstand and survive tragic events that makes us humans. When we give in to the monsters and make of them gods, we have abrogated our own humanity and made this world an ever MORE dangerous place.

[IDIOTA]

I am not interested in the legal aspects of this case. The moral parts are what intrigue me. I think that it is possible for a 13 year old to consent to sex with an adult. It wasn't so long ago that teenage girls were wed to 50 year old men in the West, and childhood is a fairly new concept, only a few centuries old. Before that, kids seven years old might be serving on a ship or as an apprentice. And child labor laws in the US are only about a century old.

Given all of that, it seems to me that Polanski induced the consent of this 13 year old girl via drugs. That is not consent.

[binq56]

There are laws and community standards. If your 13 year old daughter told you she consented to having sex with a 40+ year old man, would you really be okay with that?

[IDIOTA]

I am not saying that laws don't matter. I am looking beyond the legal question, particularly because he was subject to laws on the books 30 years ago, and I heard that he faced a maximum of four years in jail. That seems lenient given what he is alleged to have done.

I take issue with the statement that a drugged 13 year old gave consent.

[IDIOTA]

This is my third attempt to post. I get less clear each time.

How is a drugged 13 year old capable of giving informed consent?

[GrizzlyBowman]

She gives consent then takes the drugs and does the nasty?

[IDIOTA]

Okay - you're nasty, but it could have happened exactly like that. In any case, I wonder about the girl's parents. Did they just give up?

[WilliamL]

13 ?

[gjohntheterrible]

If this guy gets away with it every child abuser in jail needs to sue.

[gjohntheterrible]

Rape apologists excuses

1. It wasn't rape it was rape-rape

2. It was rape but it wasn't rape

3.She was sexually active so it could not have been rape

4. Polanski paid money so its all good now

5. He has suffered all these years since he had to live in France and Poland so it doesn't matter that he is a fugitive.

6. The judge reneged on the plea deal even though it was within his power to do so if he felt that the punishment was not enough or excessive.

[Renee Hodges]

I'm sorry, a 45 year old man having sex with a 7th grader is NOT consensual­....especi­ally if she's on drugs!!!

I mean, come on....

[Steph55]

Renee, she was not "on drugs" as you say........the poor child, and trust me she was a child.....was Drugged!!! His plan was not only to have his way with her, but to anaesthetize her so she wouldn't scream and couldn't if she tried to. .... I also beleive, from his actions in the transcript that he was hoping to wipe her memory or at least enough of it, so that she could NOT make a reliable testimony against him.

Then again he paid her, as if that would make it all better, and to undermine her credibility and any harm to his reputation.

[madupont]

Renee Hodges,

She was in the 9th.grade and had a high school boyfriend. Reading her answers to the questions of Larry King doing an interview with her and then reading her testimony at the hearing are two very different things. One of the discrepancies that I noted was that she agreed to change her mind. It was more convenient to have changed her mind. It did however warrant a much more detailed and sexually explicit description entered into testimony than one would expect from a person supposedly drugged as to be semi-comatose which was the standard reaction of quaalude use; a preferred social-drug in that period which she joined Polanski in taking.

Reading the Larry King interview however was bizarre. I am not altogether clear whether she gave those descriptions in a time frame not all that remote from when the acts described occurred, or was she interviewed much later after quite a bit of time had gone by, years it would seem, because I had to remind myself that supposedly I was hearing the details experienced by what everybody today describes as a child. Those were the most candid descriptions that I've ever heard from anybody other than an adult woman who was quite blase, as if trying to shock(although that can be an adolescent "attitude" as well), unless having actually been coached in what to say and how to say it?