Roman Polanski Enjoying Cushy Chalet Life

GSTAAD, Switzerland — The chalet doors and windows are wide open. Deck chairs are set up on the patio and the garden is strewn with daffodils and wild flowers.

Roman Polanski appears to be leading a charmed existence under house arrest in the luxury resort of Gstaad, as he awaits word from Swiss authorities on whether he'll be extradited to the United States for raping a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

And he may not be going anywhere soon.

Eight months after his arrest, the Swiss Justice Ministry still won't say when it will decide whether the 76-year-old director should be sent back to Los Angeles to face sentencing for unlawful sexual intercourse. And officials won't even say what the holdup is.

For Polanski, confined since December to his Gstaad chalet and garden, life seems to be moving on as well as could be imagined when an electronic monitoring bracelet is wrapped around your ankle.

His critically acclaimed film "The Ghost Writer" continues its global rollout, and people close to the filmmaker say he's looking into directing a movie version of the Broadway show "God of Carnage" provided his legal situation clears up.

On a recent afternoon, his home was the very picture of Alpine calm as the wind swept through two sets of open double-doors to his backyard and another to a first-floor balcony. A pair of construction workers were busy on home improvements and the jangling of cowbells could be heard in the offing. The paparazzi were long gone.

A man who answered the doorbell from an intercom said Polanski didn't want to see anyone, and the presence of a reporter prompted someone to shut the chalet's doors and windows, and draw all the curtains. It looked again like the fortress he entered six months ago when the Swiss released him from jail on $4.5 million bail.

Folco Galli, a spokesman for the Swiss Justice Ministry, provided no timeline for a decision that might free Polanski or confirm his transfer to U.S. authorities. The director would in any case be allowed to appeal an extradition order to the Swiss courts, setting up months more of legal wrangling.

Earlier this month, Polanski's lawyers raised the prospect for the first time of the filmmaker returning voluntarily to California to fight his case. But the statement was couched in language that suggested this remained unlikely.

Polanski also recently ended months of silence to accuse the U.S. of demanding his extradition solely to serve him "on a platter to the media."

The Oscar-winning director of "Rosemary's Baby," "Chinatown" and "The Pianist" was accused of plying his victim with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a 1977 modeling shoot and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.

What happened after that is a subject of dispute. The defense says the now deceased judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, had agreed in meetings with attorneys to sentence Polanski to a 90-day diagnostic study and nothing more. The judge later changed his mind and summoned Polanski for further sentencing – at which time he fled to his native France, attorneys say.

Polanski was arrested Sept. 26 as he arrived in Zurich to receive a lifetime achievement award at a film festival.

Comments

[S Richmond]

02:31 AM on 07/05/2010

Roman Polanski extradition decision by Swiss to happen shortly See:

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Polanski_extradition_decision_expected_soon.html?cid=15357124

Let us keep our fingers crossed for Roman Polanski.

[littleprincess]

09:18 AM on 07/05/2010

I've heard that before. Hope you are right this time.
We can't keep fingers and stuff crossed all the time.

[S Richmond]

01:51 AM on 07/06/2010

There is about a hundred press releases lp...

I am hoping that since the Swiss Justice Spokesperson announced on American Independence day, July 4th 2010 that they would give their Swiss decision soon a that that might signal that the Swiss will announce on 7/8/2010

in Europe - July 8th 2010 that Roman Polanski has independence from America and California Justice, and that the Swiss will not extradite Roman Polanski to U.S.A.

It would make sense that the Swiss would free Roman Polanski on 7/8/ 2010 since this date somewhat duplicates the date that Roman Polanski asserted his independence from America by leaving on 2/1/78.

Of course I might be totally off base – and this might be total wishful thinking

[S Richmond]

06:55 AM on 07/12/2010

Yes I am right this time, July 12th 2010 2.pm Berne Switzerland Time
Just have to know which Swiss Newspapers to trust. Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf will give a news conference.

For those of you interested the extradition decision is coming at 2 pm Swiss Time for Roman Polanski

The Swiss government says it will make an announcement Monday July 12, 2010 about Roman Polanski's extradition to the United States for a 1977 sex case. The government says Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf will hold a news conference in the capital Bern at 2 p.m. (1200 GMT; 8 a.m. EDT) "on the matter of the Roman Polanski extradition decision."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article
/2010/07/12/AR2010071201129.html?hpid=moreheadlines

[jackbutler5555]

12:54 PM on 07/06/2010

I can't conceive of any scenario -- except two -- other than Polanski is extradited. The very substantial legal problems in this case can be conceded and still he would be extradited. The Swiss can state their reservations but conclude that these are legal matters to be decided only in American courts.

A scenario I cannot evaluate is whether Swiss politics will enter into the decision making process. It is a political football there, as littleprincess has found out through her research. So, I don't know which side in the Swiss political contest will have the most impact.

Another scenario is a reversal by a high Swiss court. I'm guessing that the judges at the highest level there are less sensitive to political interference.

If Polanski is returned to the United States, I believe he has at least an 80 percent of winning on appeal. The case is absolutely too dirty for judges on the various appeal levels to condone the judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. However, California politics will stretch this out at least until the November elections. LADA Cooley will use this as a wedge issue, given Polanski's unpopularity. Cooley could and probably will lose on every step of the appeal, and yet be gaining popular support for his try at the California attorney general post.

[S Richmond]

09:37 PM on 07/06/2010

Jack remember how there was a reversal in how the Swiss Justice on November 25th 2009 allowed Roman Polanski house arrest after many attempts where they said no. This announcement was made just before, or on American Thanks Giving Day. So Polanski moved a step nearer freedom out of a Swiss Jail and into his Chalet.

The Swiss hinted on Independence Day that the decision is coming shortly. The fact that the announcement came on American Independence day could mean nothing at all but perhaps not, it might be dropping a hint as to what is to come.

Also it doubles that Roman Polanski asserted his independence from California Justice on 1st Feb 1978 having completed his side of the bargain in the plea agreement, and after Santa Monica Judge Rittenband was going to do a dirty, break the agreement, and give Polanski a double whammy of a sentence and take his rights away from him to fight deportation. Roman Polanski maintained his independence and left America.

Roman Polanski has served his time at Chino and 10 months in Switzerland. The Swiss have to work out whether they think Polanski has six more months to serve or not. If not then the Swiss must let him go.

In movie terms closure would be on Roman Polanski's Independence Day from America 7/8/2010.

Also the French President and the German Babelsberg Studios are closer to Switzerland and its politics, than County of Los Angeles, Judges and LA DA Steve Cooley.

[S Richmond]

09:52 PM on 07/08/2010

Wishful thinking for 7/8/2010

lets hope as you predict for the Swiss National Day of INDEPENDENCE FROM USA.

[picott]

03:45 AM on 06/16/2010

Invaluable.

[Tre Ming]

10:48 PM on 06/14/2010

Thanks very much for the link littleprincess I will try and translate with Babylon

[littleprincess]

07:07 AM on 06/15/2010

There is a summary of what the article says in a post below.
Any thing specific you need to know?

[S Richmond]

08:51 PM on 06/13/2010

TO clarify and in answer to who is to blame for the Roman Polanski situation now –
the most honest and psychologically coherent opinion as to who is to blame actually comes from the person who has had the experience, who has the BIG PICTURE in his head, himself.

Who has been harmed and re-victimized is Roman Polanski.

This is what Roman Polanski had to say about the matter on May 2nd 2010 for those of you who have not read it, or have already forgotten.

"This affair was roused from its slumbers of over three decades by a documentary film-maker who gathered evidence from persons involved at the time. I took no part in that project, either directly or indirectly. The resulting documentary not only highlighted the fact that I left the United States because I had been treated unjustly; it also drew the ire of the Los Angeles authorities, who felt that they had been attacked and decided to request my extradition from Switzerland, a country I have been visiting regularly for over 30 years without let or hindrance.

...I can remain silent no longer because the same causes are now producing the same effects. The new District Attorney, who is handling this case and has requested my extradition, is himself campaigning for election and needs media publicity!"

[littleprincess]

05:40 AM on 06/09/2010

Interesting additional bit from the article mentioned below:

Polanski’s arrest (9/26/2010) was triggered by the report of a Canton police officer regarding the pending international arrest warrant.

This piece of information up to now only emerged from the Swiss papers once: in a private comment on a newspaper article back in October 2009, saying that a young policeman on his way to the Zurich film festival informed himself about the celebrity guest Roman Polanski whom he didn’t know about. He googled him, found out about his past, found the arrest warrant still valid, and informed his bosses about the facts. We all know how they acted upon this information.

Who is to blame for the situation now? This young ignorant policeman? His superiors who didn’t use discretion? The DA office in Los Angeles, using the case for their own public profile?

BTW I hear Steve Cooley won the race for republican nomination for California’s next election of Attorney General.

[littleprincess]

05:38 AM on 06/09/2010

Summary of an article in Swiss newspaper „Bieler Tagblatt“ from 6/7/2010:
(http://www.bielertagblatt.ch/news/Schweiz/176496 -- link in German)

The (Swiss) Federal Office of Justice is still working on its decision whether or not to extradite Roman Polanski. They are examining whether all required conditions are met by the request of the DA office in Los Angeles.

According to the U.S. extradition request Roman Polanski has pleaded guilty to sexual acts with a minor. According to Federal Minister of Justice Widmer-Schlumpf under existing U.S. law we look at a maximum penalty of two years for this.

No information that the sentence already would have been fixed (whenever) is to be found in the extradition documents.

In Switzerland itself, the deed would be barred. Widmer-Schlumpf conceded it is unusual for Swiss treaties that the limitation rules of the requesting State should be applied, as in the extradition treaty with the United States.

[Tre Ming]

06:18 PM on 06/14/2010

@littleprincess good to know - if true - that in Switzerland the deed would be barred by the
statute of limitations and that Widmer - Sclump conceded it is unusual for Swiss treaties that
the limitations rules of the requesting State of California should be applied.

I tried the link ,but it did not get me to the Swiss article. Unfortunately something may get lost
in translation anyway since German is not my first language.

[littleprincess]

10:32 PM on 06/14/2010

Try this, hope that works.
http://www.bielertagblatt.ch/news/Schweiz/176496#ancContent

[littleprincess]

07:23 AM on 06/15/2010

Tre Ming, you bring up two interesting questions here.

Concerning the requesting state: The treaty is between Switzerland (a federal state/country) and the USA (another federal state/country). I didn't find any provision in the text of the treaty that refers to applying certain laws of a State within the US. The requesting state would be the US.
Wouldn't be in all the proceedings in the case -- as far as extradition is concerned -- federal US law be applied?

Concerning limitation: As for the Widmer-Schlumpf's statement about the deed being barred in Switzerland: They raised the time for limitation rather recently. At the time of the deed it would have been shorter. To my knowledge limitation applies to deeds that have never been charged.
So, wouldn't be -- in the case of Polanski -- limitation be irrelevant?

[S Richmond]

10:04 PM on 06/08/2010

Polanski does bear responsibility for his actions, but it was not ALL Polanski’s fault!

Polanski was set up first through the mother’s gross negligence towards her underage but sexually active daughter, and by Samantha either initially and purposely covering up her topless modeling activities from her mother, or by later covering up her mother’s gross negligence in allowing Samantha to model semi-nude unattended with Roman Polanski.

This reminds me of an earlier dangerous trap that Polanski had faced in Poland after the Second World war where Polanski nearly lost his life to a serial murderer who lured Polanski under the ground to steal his bicycle and who nearly killed Polanski in the process by beating his head until he was unconscious and leaving him for dead.

It seems that Samantha and her mother Susan Galley, the California Judge Laurence J. Rittenband, Los Angeles prosecutor David Wells, 9th Circuit Judge Trott, Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and his office 32 years later have wanted to steal Polanski’s fame, good name and his money, and his freedom all for a casual sexual encounter for which he was NOT entirely responsible.

[littleprincess]

06:00 AM on 06/09/2010

"Casual sexual encounter"?

S Richmond @ Dreamweaver2nd: "Who says? You? And what authority are you pray tell?"

I ask you the same questions here, S Richmond.
For all I know, the unlawful sex charge results from a plea bargain.

On a different note, different questions:
How would you deal with "sexually active teenagers"? How would you deal with a teenage daughter who is growing up and has to slowly take up responsibilities for herself?

As mother, and father, you take so many decisions during raising a child, and then this one decision turns out to be wrong -- that's "gross"? How would you feel if you were accused the way you accuse Sam.'s mother? How would you as a teenager have felt, being accused like you accuse Sam.?

[S Richmond]

09:36 PM on 06/13/2010

It seems that Littleprincess has never had the experience!

The problem is in Los Angeles that once you step forward to report sexual abuse or step forward to say that you have been robbed and kidnapped by people with guns and knives the first thing that the Los Angeles Police Department want to know is did you cause this to happen yourself? Are you to blame, or are you just a victim?

Were you a prostitute that was kidnapped by two men with guns and knives In Los Angeles, or just an innocent woman who was robbed and kidnapped?

The police don't know you or those they arrested, and have to try to find out who should be believed.

If you say you were sexually molested- the police may ask if you caused it? They don't just believe you are the innocent party.

In Los Angeles if the man has friends in the police department, or who are Los Angeles Officials, corrupt police aided by Judges may frame & assault and batter you for you reporting sexual assault caused by one of their buddies, and for reporting Police cover up of it!

Bottom Line Reporting sexual assault in Los Angeles is a HIGHLY RISKY BUSINESS which can backfire on you - literally!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and cause you far more grief - to be re-victimized, assaulted and battered and falsely arrested in the Santa Monica Courthouse, and re-victimized by the Judges in the Federal Courts.

LOS ANGELES - 1977- 2010

VICTIMS BEWARE

[turniptruck]

07:10 AM on 06/03/2010

Wow S. Richmond Jackbutler, Ballard, Piwot--all the "blame a 13 year old kid for her rape by a 43 year old man", are FANS OF EACH OTHER!!! Suprising? No. This thread has degenerarted into a pervy chat room for men who IMO have either done what they are trying to excuse Polanki for or they would like to--or worse. Hopefully none of them are fathers of girls. Call it ad hominen all you want I don't care.

After reading a recent post where when caught dead to rights jackbutler lies about how his clear statements werent really stated as fact but only as 'opiionin' and the reader was misinterpreting and his insisting Gunson's on the record account of why he didnt pursue rape charges wasnt the "real reason" -- because it does not fit his (jacks) need to insist there was not enough evidence for rape and thats the "real reason" it wasnt persued-- when in fact the grand jury thought there was plenty of reason to return 6 felony counts --- this is a waste of time sicn when caught deead to rights, you just lie. Anyone coming here- tis a waste of time intellectually dishonesty abounds-- This threads is the unclean gathering place of rape apolgist men who chronically slant, spin leave out info and add things that dont exist, I wonder how many of you vacation in Thailand and what the FBI would find on your computers if they looked. Your posts shameful and disturbed like RP.

[S Richmond]

07:42 AM on 06/03/2010

And you seem to not want to look at the facts or the truth. Maybe it is easier for you to live that way. Please don't be on any juries. Thanks from USA

[DreamWeaver2nd]

05:39 PM on 06/07/2010

S Richmond --

You have a point of view -- yours!
Your comments on this case are dramatized for the afternoon soap operas on TV. They do not have anything to do with fact or even reasonable interpretation of events.

[littleprincess]

08:33 AM on 06/03/2010

turniptruck, I gave you credit for researching the value of Polanski's chalet, remember?! Now, please, give me credit for telling you, I'm a woman. I don't fit your description of presumed "weirdos" on this thread at all. And I say I do not know what happened back in 1977, because I believe that only two people know the truth.

So, if you and your source were right -- I would still defend Mr. Polanski at this point in time. Because you see, legally there is no rape charge anymore. Because Samantha wants him to go free. Because I have compassion for the man. Because I think, being locked up for a shorter amount of time in Chino (with Manson gang members around), being locked up in a Swiss prison, waiting for his fate to be decided -- all that has been punishment enough for someone with his suffering past. If you need punishment...

Apart from that, I think you are wrong about facts, as far as the documents available on sites like "smokinggun" go. You can check that for yourself. The source you quote here, a biography, written by not a renowned journalist / writer who's got a reputation to lose -- don't believe everything that you find black on white, or whatever cur on the internet. Writers can be sloppy, or fill in what they may think plausible. Only credible with original sources given.

[mowgo]

01:08 AM on 06/08/2010

"Because you see, legally there is no rape charge anymore. Because Samantha wants him to go free."

Samantha doesn't have the legal authority to dismiss the case.

[S Richmond]

10:53 PM on 06/02/2010

Samantha was willing to be topless with Polanski to advance her career, which she hid from her mother, deliberately to continue her work relationship with Polanski.

Susan Galley’s negligence in not chaperoning her underage daughter while working for Roman Polanski, was thus compounded by her daughter Samantha's cover up of her topless activities with Polanski.

Samantha’s concealment served to block her mother from intervening to stop Samantha’s sexual collision with Polanski before it occurred.

A trap was set for Polanski, with both mother and daughter contributing to the sexual collision, Everyone was tempted in different ways.

Not only Polanski’s action was illegal, but also the mothers since she was negligent, by not supervising her daughter's modeling activities.

Did the mother feed her daughter with false grand jury testimony to increase the blame against Roman Polanski so the mother could deflect her own negligence, in causing the sexual collision.

Also if Samantha lied to her mother, covering up her topless shoot with Polanski prior to the sexual collision, why should we believe Samantha’s grand jury testimony? She lost credibility in deliberately lying to her mother about her prior topless modeling activities with Polanski.

Every young girl and mother should be aware that if girl tempts a man by being topless, and deliberately hides this from her mother, and the young girl goes back for more there may be trouble, much more than she bargained for. After all men are only human.

Link: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20124052,00.html

[watchitbub]

06:07 AM on 06/03/2010

She doesnt say she lied to her mother about it --- she says she didnt tell her Mom cuz she wouldnt like it. Nowhere does it say the Mom asked and she lied in her reply, She states however that although it made her feel strange to do it, since he told her to do it she thouht, it must be ok.

She said in her grand jury testimony that she figured the instruction to take her top off was because that must be how photographers get 'bare shoulder' shots like she'd seen in magazines, so thats why she thought he asked her to do it. She reasoned just like a KID

You say she tempted him with her bare breast. Youre an idiot. HE TOLD HER to do it--she didnt sayshay up to him and suddently drop her shirt to seduce him, moron. And if it tempted him well he should have exercised self control like a adult man. Oh, but you think "men are only human"--meaning men cannot be expected not to drop their pants and force themselves on some girl at the sight of a boob. If that were true it seems we'd have a lot of doctors in in prison right now.

Your arguements are pathetic and your heart twisted, Your selective mention of facts in the artilce are skewed to your twisted need to blame a 13 year old kid for the transgressions of a selfish, mentally screwed up 43 year old ADULT MAN.

[S Richmond]

06:39 AM on 06/03/2010

Yes Samantha does say she lied to her mother. She lied purposely through omission! Samantha covering up her Topless Shoot with Roman Polanski, by keeping it from her mother. directly led to her downfall, plus the mother was not chaperoning her. All three PLAYERS acted out of self interest. The mother should have been prosecuted for child neglect, and if not negligence on the mother's part, then mother was after a payout, and Polanski was victimized.

On Feb. 20, 1977, Polanski took me on our first photo shoot in a hillside area just a few blocks from my house. We shot a roll of film; then he asked me to take off my shirt and took topless photos while I changed. I let him do it, but I felt self-conscious. I was thinking, "I shouldn't be doing this," but I was a kid, so I thought if it wasn't okay, he wouldn't tell me to do it. If I'd told my mom, she would never have let me go with him the second time. When he made another appointment a few weeks later, she had no reason to suspect anything. I didn't want to go, but I still thought it would be a good opportunity.

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20124052,00.html

Your argument is not enhanced by your ad hominem attack. Just because Samantha was young does not mean that she did not purposely cover up her topless activities with Polanski which contributed to her downfall.

[S Richmond]

07:35 AM on 06/03/2010

Samantha says she lied to her mother, purposely through omission!

The Lie of Omission - Definition:
A lie of omission is to remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up. It is a method of deception and duplicity that uses the technique of simply remaining silent when speaking the truth would significantly alter the other person's capacity (in this case Samantha's mother) to make an informed decision.

And the consequences of Samantha lying by omission? Samantha stole her mother's right to choose the options which were witheld from mother Susan Galley, which would have been to stop any more photography with Polanski. Was her mother free? NO! Samantha's mother was a slave to Samantha's deception and manipulation, which in the end caused Samantha's downfall.

Was Samantha's behavior to her mother ethical or moral? NO!
Was her mother violated and deceived by Samantha? YES!
Did Samantha serve her own self interests at her mother's expense? YES!
Did Samantha engage in lies of omission to her mother? YES!
Was Samantha's intention to deceive her mother? YES!

Of course Samantha's mother failed Samantha too - in a different way, by not chaperoning Samantha at the photo shoot with Roman Polanski

What do you suppose this Biblical passage means:
"Know the truth and the truth will set you free."

If the truth sets you free, what do lies do?

And whats the difference between speaking a lie, and Samantha intentionally withholding the Truth from her Guardian mother Susan Galley?

[tyciol]

05:25 AM on 06/02/2010

Party Hard Polanski

[emhellmer]

05:51 PM on 05/28/2010

This must be the Kafkaesque isolation of which Bernard-Henri Levy spoke. Now we can have a whole new appreciation for "The Pianist"; not only did Polanski live such a nightmare as a child, but now he returns to it in old age! Oh the tragedy...

[DevonTexas]

11:32 AM on 05/28/2010

No matter how cushy it may appear. it still wasn't worth the sex with a minor, was it Roman?

[peowlemeow]

08:14 AM on 05/28/2010

Anal rape of a minor sums up the 1970s .Polanski made some good movies but he won't be missed.

[jackbutler5555]

10:56 AM on 05/28/2010

Mere accusations of anal rape -- without corroboration -- sums up the 2010's.

[billow]

11:56 AM on 05/28/2010

Well actually, it IS a fact that he anally raped her. No accusation at all, it's a fact.

[turniptruck]

05:33 PM on 05/29/2010

PROVE what youre saying.

Produce the report, At least there are those (Christopher Sandford autor of recent Polanski biography) who are professional writers who regularly do this kind of research and therefore have ways to find out about such matters who have said the report says anal bruising -- in print---at the risk of lawsuits if they are lying about it.

Mere accusations that there was NO anal rape....without corroboration--sums up JackButlers post on this topic 2010, 2009..........ad naseum

[picott]

05:33 PM on 05/30/2010

I first visited the States in 1963 - three weeks short of 18yo.
"Anal" was the relationship of choice for many "chicks",
who felt it was "groovier" with "frogs" - who didn't have as many
"hangups" as their US contemporaries and were able to show
a little tenderness.
The "half-virgins" had already been the subject of a play,
and Otto Preminger's "The Moon is Blue" (1953) had "freaked out"
the Cath. hierarchy. He filmed it in two versions: US & German.

So, the Holy Ghost did not bring a conclusion to this sorry saga
a week ago, like he was s'posed to. We'll just wait for the Assumption
of the Virgin Mary, then (Aug 15).
Meanwhile, here in Singapour "Ghost Writer" opened coincidentally
with "Wanted & Desired" (Cathay) and is doing brisk business.
Iran let go of the French woman - will D.A. Cooley and the Swiss risk
appearing less civilized?
want to appear

[jackbutler5555]

09:30 PM on 06/01/2010

Those girls took advantage.

[littleprincess]

08:11 AM on 06/02/2010

"This movie was used as a part of a plot line in the "The Moon is Not Blue" episode of "M*A*S*H." The plot line focuses on Hawkeye Pierce and B.J. Hunnicut trying to obtain a copy of the movie for the 4077th after hearing it has been banned in Boston. But when they finally get the film, they discover it's not at all explicit. Upon viewing the film, Hawkeye says the reason a character in the movie says the word "virgin" is because "Everyone in the movie *was*!" "
(courtesy imdb / trivia)

What's the German version?

[S Richmond]

05:27 AM on 05/28/2010

Its a good sign that the Swiss are taking so long.

It might be a strategically good measure to wait until the race of Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley who desires to be the next attorney General of California is over.

If the Swiss were to let Polanski go sooner, take his ankle bracelet off and send him off packing to Paris France to his wife and kids, that might mess up the race for Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley

and the Swiss Justice Department certainly would not want to do that, since the Los Angeles DA's office has put so much effort into the Attorney General race by arresting Polanski on a 33 year old charge, for which he paid at the time at Chino

[georgiegirl]

10:22 PM on 05/27/2010

Polanski has had it made for the past 33 years. Not only did he thumb his nose at our laws, but then he has been able to direct movies and make millions of dollars off of them. Now, he sits there under house arrests planning his next movie.....He needs to come back and serve his sentence (whatever it is) and stop thumbing his nose at us.
Yes, people have done worse things....AND people have done a lot less and gotten the book thrown at them......AND then of course there are those that go thru life doing disgusting things and never have to see the inside of a prison.

[Loophole]

03:49 PM on 05/28/2010

Oh Lordy. More uninformed people talking things they know nothing about. And speak for yourself: I've never felt he was thumbing his nose at me.

[georgiegirl]

06:43 PM on 05/28/2010

I said he was thumbing his nose at our laws......and yes, I am entitled to my opinion, just like you are.

[smarish]

08:03 PM on 05/28/2010

So, I suspect you know something about it. Tell us more, lowlife. I think not.