Polanski's Wife: Our Worst Moments Are Over

WARSAW, Poland — The wife of Roman Polanski says she believes the 32-year-old sexual abuse case against her husband will be finished soon.

French actress and singer Emmanuelle Seigner, 43, is to appear in a TVN24 interview in Poland on Monday and the station ran some clips before its broadcast.

The 76-year-old Polanski was arrested in September on a U.S. arrest warrant and is under house arrest in the couple's house in Gstaad, Switzerland, pending an extradition decision.

Seigner says their life is "not ideal" but is "good" because Polanski can see their two children, Morgane and Elvis.

She says she believes the matter will be "solved and over pretty soon" and that the "toughest moments are behind us."

The singer is in Poland to promote a new album.

Comments

[jackbutler5555]

04:05 PM on 04/22/2010

Court denies dismissal appeal by Polanski victim
The Associated Press, April 22, 2010

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A California appeals court has denied a petition by Roman
Polanski's victim to dismiss the decades-old sex case against the director.

Records show the California Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles
denied the motion on Thursday without comment.

Samantha Geimer had sought to dismiss the 32-year-old criminal case against
Polanski, arguing a change to California's constitution gave her more input into
the prosecution.

Attorneys for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office said in a
filing last week that argument should be denied.

Polanski was accused in 1977 of having sex with Geimer, then 13. He was
indicted on six felony counts, but later pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful
sexual intercourse.

Messages left with the district attorney's office and Geimer's attorney were
not immediately returned Thursday.
Wonderwall HomePhoto Galleries
More on MSN
Solar Panel and house -- © altrendo travel-Getty Images

Real Estate

Affordable ways to make your home 'green'

[James Ballard]

04:47 PM on 04/22/2010

@ "jackbutler"
3:45 PM CST

...Unfortunately, Jack, as you already know, this was predictable...token support for the lower court...and technically they can always cop to the legal rationale that her wishes (albeit constructed within a legal format) have no bearing in that the case is now owned by the State; her preferences having long become moot.

The good news for Polanski is that this only reinforces the near certain prospect of her being (absolutely !) a hostile witness for the State should the State be foolish enough to reinstate original charges...I'd like to see them try !!...(There's no doubt they would do so if they felt it politically expedient; the stipulations of the international expedition treaty with the Swiss notwithstanding).

J.B.
4/22/10

[jackbutler5555]

03:28 PM on 03/25/2010

Getting back to the blog subject, I wonder what Mrs. Polanski means by "the worst is over."

[littleprincess]

09:41 AM on 03/26/2010

She's being pragmatic, Jack, she can see her husband, the children see their father, Mr. Polanski isn't in prison any longer. For the time being.. it's good for her. Other than that - who knows what the legal experts have been negotiating out "behind the curtains". Maybe she knows something, you don't know (I know I don't). But we can all keep guessing..

[littleprincess]

09:45 AM on 03/26/2010

Huh.. you fooled me - it's news, not a blog. Boy, you're good!

[jackbutler5555]

06:02 PM on 03/21/2010

Picott:

Thanks. In one file, everything to know about the case is there.

[picott]

06:52 AM on 03/21/2010

Concern for fhe well-being of young girls is perfectly legitimate.
Remember 1972:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thị_Kim_Phúc

[picott]

10:35 AM on 03/21/2010

I guess she don't qualify - she was 9.

[littleprincess]

11:44 AM on 03/21/2010

she was marrie'd age 6, poor thing, but then the favorite... did she like it then ?
help me, PLEA se

[picott]

12:30 PM on 03/21/2010

Confirming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thị_Kim_Phúc
(the link didn't come out correctly the first time)

[James Ballard]

03:39 PM on 03/19/2010

@ "jack butler"
2:35 PM CST

...For anyone interested in seeing just a glimpse of the whole picture :

[ Thursday, March 18, 2010 New York Times ] :

Link :
Polanski Lawyers Cite New Allegations of Judicial Misconduct

"...Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the district attorney, said her office was aware of the filing and had no immediate response. 'We don’t think a verbal response is appropriate, but we will respond in writing,' Ms. Gibbons said..."

"...Mr. Montagna said he had never talked to Judge Rittenband about the case. Mr. Trott, who is now a senior circuit judge with the 9th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, declined to comment. 'I’m staying out of that completely,' he said. Mr. Gunson could not immediately be reached for comment..."

"...Douglas Dalton, a retired lawyer who represented Mr. Polanski in the original prosecution, excoriated prosecutors for concealing the original review of Judge Rittenband’s behavior.
'The evidence suggests they went behind my back to confirm the misconduct with the judge himself and never informed me,' Mr. Dalton said in the statement. 'If proven, this is as bad as I have seen in over 50 years as a former prosecutor and lawyer in our system.'..."

...(continued)...

[James Ballard]

04:09 PM on 03/19/2010

...(conclusion)...

"...Reached by phone on Thursday, Mr. Wager said he never talked about the case with Judge Rittenband, though he described the judge as a lifelong friend who had counseled him to attend law school. Mr. Wager said, however, that he had tried to join Douglas Dalton on Mr. Polanski’s legal team, then later talked about the case with Mr. Gunson, the prosecutor and also a friend, even while denying to Mr. Dalton that he had spoken with Mr. Gunson. 'I lied to Dalton', Mr. Wager said..."

...These four excerpts alone speak volumes for what really went down : An object lesson in classic whitewash. And I do mean "WHITEwash" in both the purest ethnic and metaphorical sense !

REPEAT :

..." 'We don’t think a verbal response is appropriate, but we will respond in writing,' Ms. Gibbons said."

It doesn't get more classic...or better...than this folks !!

Thanx Jack for bringing it to our attention.

J.B.
3/19/10

[jackbutler5555]

05:22 PM on 03/19/2010

The term, verbal, meaning communication using words, has been corrupted to mean oral. But I would say this is more of an example of anal communications. Maybe the right way to describe this is anal with extreme sphincter pressure. Tkondocs likes it when I talk about body parts like this.

Having been on both sides of media, I will tell you this: The DA is nervous. They want to put a spin on this so far out that they would have to be confronted with followup question, IF they go oral.

So, in writing gives them the opportunity to lay low in the foxhole hoping the enemy will forget about them after a while. I suspect they will need MRE's to tide them over. It's going to be a long time. Then there's the problem of what to do with the MRE's, after they are digested. Back to anal talk again.

[cookerman45]

06:26 PM on 03/19/2010

i think jack is just being ANAL.

[cookerman45]

04:02 PM on 03/20/2010

jackthebutler=scarecrow
littleprincess=dorthy
jamesballard=cowardly lion
toto=picott
polanski=wizard
if any one (1) had heart the tin mans roll would be filled.
"following the wizards lead the trio and there( their?) trusty dog seek out to defend the defenseless".

[jackbutler5555]

01:08 PM on 03/19/2010

March 18 New York Times has another Polanski story -- with allegation of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct worse than previously reported. New talking points will be needed to minimize the ethical violations which border on criminal. More information on Gunson. It's not revealed he tried to have the judge disqualified. That's really something when the prosecutor believes the judge has harmed the interests of the defendant.

The Polanski punitive polemicists better get to work.

[picott]

01:48 PM on 03/19/2010

Dear Jack: (and to other sincere interested persons)
When I read the Lisa Deutsch AP piece more than fifteen hours ago, I thought it was sensational stuff and I was confident it would take a prominent place on HP Home, Entertainment and RP pages.
The problem is that this sory has become harder to get into than Brothers Karamazov, with all these characters - even if I find the whole plot equally rewarding.
I don't see how the Swiss can answer to a US/Calif. extradition request when it is established that the Americans were so deceiptful, deceptive and dishonest. I don't see how Judge Espinoza can accept the criminal actions of so many of his predecessors. I don't see how Steve "airtight" Cooley can keep his job and position.
I've followed thoroughly all the HP blogs and threads since the end of September. I don't remember anyone I could call "a punitive polemicist". Could you refresh my memory?
/p
P.S.- The 20-odd comments condemning the defendant in today's NYT piece also fail to impress me.

[jackbutler5555]

05:28 PM on 03/19/2010

The irony here is that Huffington Post has just started its LA edition.

It's easy to follow the cast of characters, with this mnemonic trick: If they work for the DA in the last several decades, they are crooked.

The Polanski punitive polemicist is entirely my invention today.

I was tempted to counsel the commenters on the NYT page, but I feel I owe Huffington Post readers my undivided attention. To comfort the commenters here, I'll just say they are no needier than the NYT people.

[cookerman45]

09:44 AM on 03/20/2010

help protect the rights of "thirteen year old girls" that's how piccott

[picott]

02:32 PM on 03/19/2010

Here's the link in question:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/
polanski-lawyers-cite-new-allegations-of-judicial-misconduct/

[picott]

10:27 PM on 03/18/2010

Paris, 3 AM
It now appears that tkondaks will have a conniption fit.
Justice is about to be made.

[jackbutler5555]

07:05 PM on 03/16/2010

You don't dispute the facts, but I dispute your contrived interpretations.

My purpose is simple -- due process. Polanski didn't receive it. I want everybody to receive it. The LA judicial system has failed. And by glossing over that, you seem to be "trying to write a pass for" them.

[Phxgwen]

07:38 PM on 03/16/2010

I find it amazing that after all these years.. the D.A. and Geimer's lawyer claim that this trial was not fair to Polanski and that they completely understood why he fled. Who does that? I don't think I have ever seen a victim and the lawyer for the victim turn around and defend the actions of the accused.

I also find it amazing that even though they have all said that time served was what they wanted.. the lawyers, the victim and the victims family that so many people want him to serve 50 years for the lesser charge.. is it a misdemeanor? It's not even a felony.

This case is crazy. Could they have screwed it up more.

[picott]

07:49 PM on 03/16/2010

Gunson is the original prosecutor.
He is not the Repub. L.A. County D.A. who would have liked to become Attorney General.
(I wonder if his deputy Walgren - the one who said maximum sentence for RP is two years - is a member of the DDA Union, which recently - 3/3/10 - got Steve Cooley in so much trouble.)

[jackbutler5555]

07:50 PM on 03/16/2010

They did screw it up. But what is amazing to me is the lock-step formations around the DA, and the crooked judge.

If I were to come to this case cold and read your first paragraph and then the rest of the comments here, I'd be wondering what the hell's going on? (The charge would be either a misdemeanor or a felony. The judge gets to decide. The judge initially decided a misdemeanor because of the probation plea deal he developed.)

This is the jury pool. Scary, ain't it?

[tkondaks]

02:12 PM on 03/17/2010

No, Polanski didn't receive "due process". The incredible favoritism shown him was an absolute miscarriage of justice. I would also call his lawyers' eagerness and public utterances that they were going to rake his victim over the coals (i.e., drudge up her past sexual experiences) a horrible miscarriage of justice as well.

But, to you, that is "due process" and all fair in the "game" of going to court.

But of course you are referring to alleged improprieties on the part of the only sane person in this whole sordid affair, Judge Rittenband. But, Jack, if there WERE improprieties on his part, we have a justice system that includes an appeals process that Polanski could have availed himself of.

Oh, horrors of horrors! Polanski would have had to serve out the remainder of his 90 day sentence (another 48 days). That's what we're talking about here; that's ALL that Polanski was worried about and yet he couldn't do that. Well, sorry, but weighing what he was accused of against the alleged improprieties and I think it's safe to say that due process demanded and common sense and common decency demanded that he do his 48 days and then he could have screamed bloody murder about due process all he wanted.

But to do it now, as you do, is an insult to the whole concept of due process.

[jackbutler5555]

04:06 PM on 03/17/2010

I'm familiar with your position. Lord knows I tried to give you the counseling you needed to come to terms with all this. It is a personal failure of mine that I couldn't communicate the wisdom I possess on this matter. I'll go to the grarve regretting my inability to help you.

[picott]

07:36 PM on 03/17/2010

Rittenband's public utterances about the girl, her boyfriend (whom he considered indicting) and her mother came before Mr. Dalton's statements about his options in the case. Read his statements reported by AP at the time. And the People magazine interview is a lulu.
Also, at the time of Polanski's arrest, the public was concerned about a bunch of cops who had raped a group of girlscouts. This fact put the SG incident in a quite different light.

[picott]

06:32 PM on 03/16/2010

Irrefutable:
A less widely noted probation officer’s report prepared in September of 1977 gives a jarring reminder that Mr. Polanski’s behavior at the time was being treated by key officials more as an exercise of bad judgment than as a vicious assault. (...)
The report, submitted by acting probation officer Kenneth F. Fare, and signed by a deputy, Irwin Gold, recommended that Mr. Polanski receive probation without jail time for his conviction on one count of having unlawful sex with a minor. In a summary paragraph, the report said: “Jail is not being recommended at the present time. The present offense appears to have been spontaneous and an exercise of poor judgement by the defendant.” It went on to note that the victim and her parent, as well as an examining psychiatrist, recommended against jail, while a second psychiatrist described the offense as neither “aggressive nor forceful.”
(source: NYT 10/2/09)

[littleprincess]

10:09 AM on 03/17/2010

I liked your exchange with worldcitizen: Justice through dismissal - if under the law, no contradiction.
Just a man, but I guess that's the problem. So if not under the law, any suggestions?
(BTW - wordpress is rather strange source, don't you think?)

[picott]

02:36 PM on 03/18/2010

Hello, lp:
I don't really remember what I said to the stressed out,
pathetic Mrs. WC. (It's difficult not to feel some sympathy
for her, even though I don't agree with her at all.)
I don't fully understand your telegraphic style.
Tell me, what's strange about 'wordpress'?
Looks to me like an adequate place to store memories.
/p

[jackbutler5555]

11:05 AM on 03/20/2010

Your problem with Wordpress may be that it is accessible to everyone. I think the best way to use Wordpress is to evaluate each article. (Sort of like here.)

[tkondaks]

02:21 PM on 03/17/2010

picott never likes to remind readers what Jeffrey Toobin in his New Yorker article found completely outrageous about the star-struck probation officer and the even more star-struck psychiatrist: that they found Polanski "solicitous" towards his victim because, in order to prevent her being possibly impregnated, he withdrew his penis from her vagina and, instead, put it in her anus.

picott gets upset that I continually mention this whenever HE mentions the probation report because it, quite rightly, puts these individuals in the very bad light they deserve to be in. Indeed, he stoops to claiming that I am a pervert for daring to mention these body parts and activities (which, according to the victim, were perpetrated against her), something very hard to avoid when discussing a case of sodomy and forced sex (i.e., what some would call "rape" but picott and JackButler are loath to do).

[picott]

07:53 PM on 03/17/2010

Toobin's reaction to RP's 'solicitude' made good copy, maybe, but there is a context that he's decided to ignore completely, which can be understood only if you remember those pre-aids days, and times when contraception wasn't widely used. Preminger's 1953 movie "The Moon Is Blue" and the controversy around it would give you a clue.
I've noticed that you've excluded "cuddliness" from your mantra. Do you have nothing to say about cunnilingus?

[jackbutler5555]

04:18 PM on 03/16/2010

There are too many of you who disagree with me. I have tried to answer everyone. There are some bugs in the forum software. I see a posting but it disappears. So that I can get onto other things, why don't you bring up anything I haven't answered -- other than ad hominems and emotional outbursts and I'll try to answer as many of them as possible on this tread.

[tkondaks]

03:32 PM on 03/17/2010

The reason your posts may be disappearing, Jack, is due to the moderation policy of this site. My understanding is that comments to news stories immediately appear and THEN are subject to moderation (and deletion by the moderator, if appropriate). Comments to bloggers are held in abeyance and don't appear UNTIL they are moderated by either a site moderator or the blogger themselves (bloggers can unilaterally delete any comments they don't like).

An exception to the above is the appearance of key words (such as swear words) which will trigger an abeyance of comments that require the moderator's approval before appearance.

[jackbutler5555]

04:37 PM on 03/17/2010

Thanks for that description of the process of moderation.

I haven't noticed whether any of my posts have been deleted. Have you?

[blastit]

03:25 PM on 03/16/2010

I'm not sure if he should serve time for this crime if so a very reduced sentence, even the girl as an adult said he shouldn't

[Jazz88105]

07:54 AM on 03/16/2010

The matter will be solved ? Is he coming back to the US to serve his time ? Another question is how do you marry a child rapist and have his children ? Makes my skin crawl.

[cookerman45]

01:51 PM on 03/16/2010

jack will have a "smoke screen " of an answer for you ......

[tkondaks]

02:23 PM on 03/17/2010

Jack and picott will blame the judge and the unruly mob who express their anger that anyone would want to see a child rapist actually get locked up for his crimes.

[Tyrione]

06:07 AM on 03/16/2010

She has aged considerably since the Ninth Gate.

[jackbutler5555]

10:53 AM on 03/16/2010

So have you.

[tkondaks]

01:40 PM on 03/16/2010

And you call ME obsessive, Jack.

Why, your posts on this thread rival the output of Stephen King.

[Theda]

01:35 AM on 03/16/2010

Not surprising that Polanski's wife is 33 years younger than him. When SHE was 13, he was 46. UGH.

[pisceanmind]

01:28 AM on 03/16/2010

For all the Polanski defenders: If he doesn't have to serve his time, why does any sex offender have to serve time? They should all be given a slap on the wrist and a ticket to protection from prosecution.

[PerryWhite]

10:39 AM on 03/16/2010

They have deemed him blameless.

[writer10027]

01:14 PM on 03/16/2010

Please post a link to a credible source that says this.

You won't be able to because he has not been "deemed blameless", by anyone except the delusional fo.ols who have bought into the "autuer as transcendent above mere mortal churnings" nonsense.

[writer10027]

01:34 PM on 03/16/2010

Sorry PerryWhite, I misread the "They" in your comment as the authorities & courts, when I think you meant "They" were the Polanski apologists. My bad.