Polanski: What's On Trial?
What is fascinating about the Polanski case is that it is not particularly about Polanski. Looking at the debate raised in France (where I live) and the United States -- in defense of the extradition decision or against it -- it becomes clear that the Polanski affair has become an occasion for people to express (or rather expose) prejudices, premises, outrage about a whole host of issues, from child abuse to national integrity.
Let's look on "what is on trial" in the range of articles and television shows devoted to the subject. As you will see, Polanski himself is a minor issue in the thicket.
COUNTRIES AND ERAS
1. Switzerland : its decision to snag Polanski after its own Zurich film festival had invited him to receive a life achievement award. What bad manners! The authorities could have snagged him at any other time in Polanski's own Swiss chalet, where he goes several times a year. And how dare Switzerland have contacted the US first! The fury against Switzerland is such that it even elicited a Huff Post blogger to denounce Switzerland, lumping its pretended neutrality in WW II ("letting tanks in") with this recent scandal, and concluding that we should boycott Swiss chocolate. There is a suspicion as well as to Switzerland's real motives for its extradition move: to get the US to be more lenient in its IRS investigations of a major Swiss bank (the USB) which allegedly helps Americans tax-evade in Switzerland.
2. The United States: From the classical French point of view, the US is criminally puritanical about sex as opposed to France , with its own more "liberal" wink-an-eye espousal of affairs under the sheets. The extent of this prejudice is so great that most popular French papers -- such as "Le Monde" and Liberation -- have chosen to distort the facts when reporting on the case. Liberation described Polanski's crime as an "affaires des moeurs", a banal case of mores, rather than a convicted case of "illegal sex with a minor". Le Monde describes what happened as "Polanski's relations with a young girl," forgetting the word "illegal."
The distortion is such that many French readers, responding in blogs, do not understand that Polanski has already been convicted of a criminal charge, which he admitted. At a party last night, a French gentleman noted: "Oh come on, the Americans keep bringing up that old bêtise (little mistake). To his credit, this gentleman had no idea what Polanski's "little mistake" was nor that it was technically a convicted crime. How could he? The French press has been reluctant to repeat the actual facts of Polanski's bêtise: i.e. that the grand jury testimony recounts that on March 10, 1977, a thirteen year old girl was given champagne, a half-quaalude, and then sodomized, while she continually protested.
France's current treatment of the case may also reflect the fact that the French are not so up-to-date on the idea of rape as a "violation" of the person (a crime of unequal power relations) rather than a matter of eros gone awry--a fuzziness exposed in philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy's much ridiculed comment that Polanski should be let off for an "error of a youth" (he was 43 at the time).
NB: while these French views above are prevalent, they have been energetically attacked by the French themselves--so there is no "universal French view".
3. The 1970s: for its wild lenient attitude towards sex, date rape and drugs, and less conscious ideas about "child abuse." Polanski's attitude was part and parcel of the 1970s, when, following the arrest, he referred to Samantha G as the "whore" who ruined his life. Years later, in a televised interview with Diane Sawyer, he tenderly said that at the time, he had no idea that what he did was wrong--"it was spontaneous"--and that now it had dawned on him.
4. The current period: for its stricter attitude towards sex, date rape, drugs, child abuse. Today a crime like Polanski's would receive a much harsher sentence than in 1978. Now, if Polanski returns for sentencing, legally the most he himself could receive is two years.
THE US LEGAL SYSTEM
1. Why is Polanski being charged for "une histoire ancienne", is a popular complaint in Europe. The charge is already "thirty years old"! Interestingly, the French intellectuals critiquing the lack of "prescription" in US law (prescription = dropping of charges after a certain time) overlook the fact that France does not have it either. "Prescription" in France means that after ten years, no one can be charged of a crime. It does not mean that once someone has been convicted, he cannot be punished. It is also interesting that the French call this an "old story" rather than an "old conviction", again minimizing the "crime."
2. The judge's handling of the case. Marina Zenovich's documentary : Polanski: Wanted and Desired" fueled this perspective, in concentrating on the judge's (Lawrence Rittenband) waffling about the sentencing. Polanski was initially given three months in Chino 's psychiatric ward, for psychiatric evaluation. After 42 days served, Rittenband changed his mind and seems to have been about to either sentence Polanski to serve the full term in this psychiatric ward, be deported or have a new prison sentence. Reports in the media are murky as to what he actually was going to do, so it is impossible to have an opinion here.
Incidentally, this particular charge has given the spotlight to Zenovich's film, which frankly was one of the worst films I have ever reviewed at Cannes: confused about perspective (you wonder what the film is about for the first l hour, until you get to Rittenband), amateur in film techniques ("tickertapes" predominate) and lopsided in evidence (the victim was not given a word in the documentary). The point of the film is that Rittenband was a rich powerful man, and so was Polanski, so there! To make this point, the director emphasizes that Rittenband also had had a young girlfriend, age 20, as if this means he were not allowed to judge Polanski's own deviance with a 13 year old.
I interviewed Zenovich at the premiere and asked her pointblank what was her own perspective in the film -- on the rape, or Polanski or law or ... She looked embarrassed and finally sputtered, "As a filmmaker, it is not my place to have an opinion." As to why she did not have the victim speak, she added: "Americans don't open up like Europeans." [!]
Now back to the charge against Rittenband. While everyone is outraged that he might have waffled on the plea bargain, a few have noted that the initial 90 day sentence for a rape of a minor is a rather light sentence.
3. The current US prosecutor: why is he making this charge now? Is he up for re-election? [See law professor Ronald Sokol's op ed, Oct 2, 2009] Critics also have conflated the US move to extradite Polanski with imperialism, comparing it to the Iraq invasion. Note former culture minister Jacques Lang's plea to "protect" Polanski.
4. The privileged status of wealthy criminals. Quite a few articles have critiqued the fact that Polanski, a rich man, might have received more leniency than the typical proletariat rapist. A very curious spin on the "money makes law" issue is the fact that Samantha's civil case against Polanski has been misrepresented in the French press. Fact: Samantha tried Polanski in 1988, in a civil court case -- ten years post the rape -- and received the right to indemnities of perhaps 500,000 dollars (which seems not to have been paid yet). Revealing a peculiar idea of US law, a major French tv show hosted a debate about Polanski -- in his favor--where the MC announced: "Look the girl was paid half a million by Polanski and his lawyer in front of the judge, at the time of the trial, and so"--the MC wiped her brow -- "End of story! Justice has been made!" Apparently, this French host has no problem with the "a private money-funded justice" scheme.
5. Victim legal influence. Samantha G's own reneging of the complaint , which, contrary to public misrepresentation, has not yet reached legal status. See actress Valerie Lemercier's televised comment: "I don't know all the facts [sic], but it is clear for me that since the young girl has stopped her complaint, the affair is closed." Proponents of this view overlook the fundamental question here: What does US law say here--across the board--about the victim's influence over whether a prison sentence is served?
ART
Can an artist be considered superior to the common man? Look at what Polanski has offered. I will add that my own "verdict" of Polanski as an artist is that he is my favorite director of all time. No one is more masterful in exposing the cruelty of unequal power relations, sado-masochism (Death and the Maiden), alienation (Repulsion, Tess, Chinatown) and the awful power of the group (The Tenant, Rosemary's Baby). My (deceased) friend Jean-Pierre Ruh, Polanski's sound-engineer, rhapsodized that no director he has worked with--from Truffaut to Leone--had as much genius in craft as Polanski, to the point of asking him to use a special microphone to make exterior sounds louder than interior sounds, to enhance the "sense of alienation", as well as putting mikes under faucets to do the same. Polanski's training at the famed Lodz film school, his mature vision (his student films at age 22 -- depicting the horror of "others" -- are nothing short of genius), and his absolutely honesty in depicting his own psychic wounds make him one of the most unusual and powerful artists working in film today.
That said: the debate has been is the Artist above the Law? See the interesting twist on this idea in the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad editorial by Raymond van den Boogaard, entitled "Art is not made by Nice Guys". It states that serious artists live by other standards than other human beings, and secretly we expect they do, and like it that way, making a comparison between the Polanski rape with the sexual behaviour of Lord Byron, who raped his wife, her sister and a few others: stories that "horrified and delighted the Victorians".
THE MAN HIMSELF
Polanski's past: hasn't he suffered enough? Hasn't he had a horrific childhood and adulthood? Note, most criminals have had bad childhoods and they are not excused because of this. And all respect to Polanski's history, but has anyone considered that it could be this very history that led him to be prone to pedophilia in the first place (a point hinted at in an early biography of Polanski, which notes -- perhaps with no basis -- his supposed repeated sadism with younger women)? After all, pedophilia would be a way to reverse the anguished powerless situation of his childhood: i.e. the victim theme in all his films, from Chinatown to Rosemary's Baby to the Pianist, where a helpless lone victim must submit to "all of them witches". (http://kbadt.free.fr/articles/Art%20After%20Auschwitz.pdf) Polanski's films equally show moments of vengeful violence: he himself pulling the knife on "nosy" Jack Nicholson in Chinatown , or he himself, as a 22-year-old, again pulling a knife on a hapless passerby in his 1958 student short "Two Men and a Wardrobe" (after stoning a cat to death with apple cores).
As for the violence of sado-masochistic machinations in human sexual relations, nobody is more self-aware and honest about this than Polanski himself who gave full-rein to the theme in his film Bitter Moon (19992) as well as in the early masterpiece Knife on the Water (1962).
Polanski's flight: how dare he flee the country! Some argue that he should be punished for this crime as well. Of course, however, it might be reasonable to assume that anyone who has seen Nazis take over his country and kill his mother, would have a natural suspicion (and lack of respect for) national authority, including legal systems.
Polanski's bad manners. He never sent Samantha G, the victim, a thank you note for her generous op ed in the New York Times about how one should let bygones be bygones and give him an Oscar. [This was an actual op-ed]
Polanski's good manners. The strongest point raised in his defense: rehabilitation. He's a nice guy now, and has a family of his own. Especially moving argument by Robert Harris, author of "The Ghost", the film Polanski is making (and won't finish if he doesn't get out soon). A question here: is rehabilitation a legal cause for overruling an earlier verdict?
THE VERDICT
Most spectacularly, what is on trial is the actual verdict: as if the case had not already been tried. Here there are various subsets to the arguments.
a) Is sex with a minor a bad thing? More than one blog-site has been devoted to dredging up child-adult sex relations from romantic history to show "children are not innocent". This ignores the fact that rape is not about sexual innocence but about unequal power relations, which most often targets females inscribed in a patriarchal system -- and children.
b) Was Samantha consenting to some extent, given her sexual past and the "date-rape" atmosphere? As Whoopi Goldberg notoriously said: "it wasn't rape-rape." Alternatively, people have argued (especially fathers with children), that a child is a child, and rape is rape.
c) The mother: isn't she the criminal here, dragging her daughter to a star's mansion for "photographs" (hint hint)?
* * *
What is disturbing about this whole debate -- which predominates in the media -- is that the verdict was already made (and Polanski absolutely frank about his guilt). So, if you disagree with the premises upon which the verdict was based (that it's wrong to have sex with a minor, that it is the perpetrator rather than the mother that should be on trial, that no matter what the girl's sexual history, she is still a child), or believe that a victim should decide if the law should be implemented, clearly your issue should not be with the verdict but with the law itself.
Which brings me to my own opinion. No matter how fascinating on deeper murky cultural political levels this Polanski case is, when it comes to having an opinion on the Polanski case, it should be looked at as a legal case above all.
In other words: IF a) the context of suspicious national behavior (Switzerland), b) suspicious prosecutor motivation c) criminal's painful past, d) criminal's rehabilitation, e) the length of time since the crime has been committed, f) victim opinion, and g) international shenanigans is enough to warrant that a nation's legal verdict should be overturned, then the Polanski case should be buried. But if one believes in the authority of the law--and US law in particular--then the extradition must hold.
Or change the law, so that all convicted child molesters -- the poor and non-famous and the rich and famous alike -- are eligible for leniency -- not just Polanski.
Now, of course, if you don't believe in the law, that's another story.
addendum: I find it ironic that so many French critics have been in favor of leniency, considering this is the same country where -- when I bike through a red light -- at least half a dozen pedestrians shout out: "Madame, la loi est pour tout le monde!!"
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
@ "picott"
8:40 PM CST
A few days ago I stumbled on to your recommend on Bataille. Actually, in deference to my lifelong interest in Symbolism, I was first introduced to Georges Bataille while still in High School, centuries ago. His book "Death and Sensuality" was monumental, and informed my evolving interests. Thanx for the reminder.
J.B.
11/18/09
James Ballard:
I didn't understand your comment about "that Jeff Norman" until I looked back at the thread only to see nothing left of his back-and-forth with me. Erased! You noticed what happened after I said "Goodnight," when I didn't bother to go back. Thank you for telling me. If I am in contact with "that Jeff Norman" again, I'll have a better idea of who he is.
You've been keeping an eye on me, dear ascending mentor?
My comments in that exchange remain in my account. I was going to review them anyway, but now I'll scrutinize ...
Thank you for the light,
Your student
Dreamer Weaver
5:55 PM CST
...Yes, the Devil still retains mysterious powers; things can vanish, or remain...w
The poor chap in question..
Almost felt sorry for him. Almost.
James the Wonderful
11/212/09
Sharply ascending mentor: I am so pleased that we are here. For as long as it lasts. I just read your posts in the land of strange -- I'm sorry the one got erased along with the vulgar one by someone else.
It's too late to say more because I want to get my first partial draft on the Polanski case posted now. I'll do more late tomorrow. My grandson visits and my eyes are only for him when he's with me.
This is "simple" with some detail. This is from me to me and I'm sharing with you.
James Ballard:
Among the controversial issues in the RP SG case are several I’ll write about but I’m going to keep it simple. I’m not sure what your interest or involvement is with Polanski.
I don’t need to know. I would write about it because understanding the case is a challenge to me. That’s all. There is no quest for agreement. However, if we remain on absolutely opposite sides of the issues, I hope a more compassionate understanding of the girl and her mother will overtake what before seemed suspicion and intolerance; as well as what seemed to me to be your impatience with my empathy about their circumstances.
2 Ballard
Please keep in mind that I have a lot of sympathy for Polanski and his life’s struggles. I believe a case could be made that he was unstable. I posted that I thought he could have been temporarily insane because of the pressures of his painful experiences. Of course, other posters criticized that idea. I believe it’s possible. RP may have had many breakdowns and poor judgment calls because of instability, temporary or chronic, the result of massive traumas over the decades of his life. Traumas of such extremes that it seems almost unbelievable in one person’s life.
Let’s start things off with a blast:
The Director, the Predator, the Rapist
SG 13 years old in the ninth grade
RB was going to photograph adolescent girls on special assignment from Vogue Paris.
There is controversy whether he actually had that deal or used it as a ploy. There is proof that RB did work for Vogue before and was listed at about that time as an associate editor. Anyway, if someone of Polanski’s stature wanted to submit an article to Vogue Paris, of course, it would be accepted at least for review.
3 Ballard
It is reported that RB met SG’s mother at a social event. He may have been shown a photo of SG. In any case, he indicated an interest in meeting her potentially as a model for his project. RB made arrangements with SG’s mother to come to their home to meet.
There has been speculation that SG’s mother was a “Hollywood mom” pushing for advantage for herself and her daughters. She was an actress with a short resume. She was divorced. SG’s father lived in Pennsylvania and was not a part of her life.
Who took the initiative so far for RB’s project to find models? It seems to me RB set out to find models. He was asking around. He got a response from SG’s mother, and he pursued it scheduling a date, time, and place -- to meet at the family home: very much personalizing the venture, and in keeping with showing respect for the age of his potential model. The home meeting with SG and her mother would certainly enhance any comfort level with RB.
4 Ballard
RB is a man of slight build. He could have easily passed for a teenager himself from a distance. He is under 5 feet 5 inches. His small stature, even as a celebrity, would be reassuring, certainly non-threatening. They joined in picking out a change of clothes for the photo shoot. Again, comforting involvement with mother and daughter in that “domestic” chore.
It seems inconceivable to me that he did not know the age of SG. 13 years old. RB and the mother spoke about SG as a model. There was mention that SG’s older, teenage sister might model. With a teenage sister, SG’s age could only fall within a certain range below her sister’s 16 years. (Later, in RB’s testimony before the judge he stated under oath that he knew SG’s age was 13 at the time. There is speculation that RB agreed to say that as part of the plea bargain. He testified to that fact. A fact known from the beginning by other means such as the sister’s age, and in conversation with SG’s mother.
Polanski must have considered he 'owed' SG. After all, he gave her
a significant amount of $. But what does he owe "American Justice"?
They're the ones with egg on the face.
Can they ask that he be extradited, when they will not (of course)
extradite their own American convicted criminals (to Italy)?
The only sane outcome of the rigmarole is to dimiss the whole thing
and to let RP and SG return to their children.
Then we'll ask these 'meshuggahs' how much of our good California
money they have flushed down the drain, and we will weep.
@ "picott"
10:45 AM CST
...and a definite "ditto" to you Picott...
J.B. 11/9/09
@ "Beagle"
10:15 PM CST
...Recentl
Tis a pity poor Polanski could not have taken a page from the "Temptations of Saint Anthony", the famous 4th century ascetic. Perhaps a brief hiatus into the Egyptian desert would have sated the bees in his bonnet...w
I'm in the art trade. I mention this only because I have seen countless 19th century post-Flaubert oil renditions of poor old St Anthony being visited upon by the most beautiful (most likely "underage") nymphets upon which my innocent eyes have ever alighted. Much aside from a prurient interest alien to my clean soul, I find myself hypnotized by the deliberate symbolism : the transience of beauty, the finality of death, etcetera; a particular school of art that interests me the most : Symbolism.
Now the word is that ole Anthony never (really ?) yielded to any of these taunting visages (really)..
James the Devine
11/7/09
To HP readers:
this discussion - which stands at 157 posts on this Fri 11/6/09 - is one
of the better ones you will ever find here. It ought to become the core
and the root of a badly needed serious article. It is a great jigsaw puzzle.
So far, there have been four instances of misconduct on the part of Judge Rittenband -- two contacts with an L.A. Times reporter, a contact with a Santa Monica reporter, and an incident at the judges Country Club. A fifth from a prosecutor who was not involved in the case was more serious because both the prosecutor and the judge are subject to misconduct charges. The prosecutor is now saying he didn't do it. If he allowed his first statement to stand, he would have admitted to a punishable offense.
These are the rules that judges must obey:
http://jec
Balanced background story on the possible role UBS has in the Polanski arrest:
http://www
The back story is getting more and more interesting.
Vincent Bugliosi, author of Helter Skelter, and former associate District Attorney, on the Manson murder trial 40 years later, Newsweek August 1, 2009.
A riveting retelling of how the world changed in 1969 -- people who never before locked their doors bought guns and dogs. No one felt safe.
http://www
I have always been fascinated with the case. The idea that Manson could get seemingly normal people to murder just for...what
Hi!
What about reflecting on the guy who severely beat his girlfriend?
I hope you won't be "in the middle" on that one.
"Where were/are the biggest egos in L.A.? Hollywood or L.A. D.A./judic
Based on my two days spent in Paramount Studios on a video shoot, I believe the biggest egos are in Hollywood. I saw the head of the studio walking around with his jacket draped over his shoulder surrounded by a corp of sycophants. Looking at me and my crew, he said I know what these people are doing. And it's a g.o.d.d.a.
Having said all that the smaller egos in LA Justice have the ability to do more damage, especially to each other.
by Calvin Trillin
A youthful error? Yes, perhaps.
But he's been punished for this lapse--
For decades exiled from LA
He knows, as he wakes up each day,
He'll miss the movers and the shakers.
He'll never get to see the Lakers.
For just one old and small mischance,
He has to live in Paris, France.
He's suffered slurs and other stuff.
Has he not suffered quite enough?
How can these people get so riled?
He only raped a single child.
Why make him into some Darth Vader
For sodomizing one eighth grader?
This man is brilliant, that's for sure--
Authentically, a film auteur.
He gets awards that are his due.
He knows important people, too--
Important people just like us.
And we know how to make a fuss.
Celebrities would just be fools
To play by little people's rules.
So Roman's banner we unfurl.
He only raped one little girl.
7th grade poetry, barely.
How do you prevent rape?
Some say punishment deters all crime. When the are proven wrong by the recidivism rate, they say more punishment, longer sentences.
Well, when you send a person to prison for rape, you sure haven't prevented the rape for which he was sentenced.
There is no solution that will end all crime. But the solution of punishment hasn't done the job either. In the case of rape, what makes (usually) one man believe he can force sex on a women and what makes another believe he would risk his life to stop such an assault? And what makes still another man turn away, saying it's none of his business? We may all remember a group of male employees who gang raped a women in Iraq. Not one of them said stop. They all were involved.
We have to find a way to stop this. Education of both girls and boys in the lower grades. Girls and women should not agree to be alone with a man, no matter the circumstances. I know its hard to do on a date but maybe technology can allow a girl/women to signal an alarm to 9-1-1. Glass walls and open architecture should prevent rapists from pursuing an assault.
There are many things that can be done and ought to be done that would prevent rape better than punishment. We could end the she-said, he-said stuff and focus on the he-wouldn't.
@ "jackbutler"
10:00 PM CST
Quote :
"Glass walls and open architecture should prevent rapists from pursuing an assault."
...Really laudible work here Jack. Would hate to see your efforts go unheeded.
I only object to the "glass wall/open architecture"; our culture is already leaning too far in favor of a "fish bowl" Orwellian State.
We must pursue Dame Justice with Temperance.
J.B
10/31/09
I think the open architecture is inevitable -- not f for preventing rape, but to save employers some money.
Had their been glass walls in the hotel suite in which Bill Clinton was accused of sexual impropriety, there would be no doubt who did or didn't do what to whom. Had he met the woman who accused him of copping a feel in a glass enclosed meeting room instead of the Oval Office, there would be no doubt whether that feel was copped.
We have a means of preventing some sexual attacks. Not a bad trade.
This isn't a pursuit of Dame Justice. It is a pursuit of rape prevention. But I suspect you are pursuing preservation of privacy.
And should I mention the cameras? They're here, here to stay, and soon they will be everywhere. I did my master's project on privacy and the willingness for people to give it up in exchange for something they wanted. That's was back in the 70s. Remember the Loud Family on PBS? I had no idea then there would be such a mass voluntary surrender of privacy in the ensuing decades for people interested in gaining some benefit.
One other thing: Both of use a real name here. We've given up privacy. My benefit is that I never want to think of myself saying something I can't be held responsible for.
We are on the brink of a severe diminution of privacy, as we used to know it.
For some reason, HP won't post your posting chastising me for my comments on privacy. It's in my account but not here.
Let me just say that when people are asked whether they're willing to give up their privacy, they state, absolutely not. But when they are asked to trade some specific privacy for some specific benefit, they agree.
Hate crime? Yes! We can put cameras on every street and catch criminals, do you mind. Hael, no!
Your wife cheating on you? Yeah, and it's been going on for years. I ain't sure my kid's my kid. How about a DNA test on television? Eff'n A.
How would you like the internet to search every shopping site automatically for your whole Christmas list? Yeah, I'd like that. Well, that'll mean this service will know quite a bit about you. You'd have to fill out what we call a personal inventory that will help us get to know you better. But the search for bargains is free, okay? Okay.
The diminution of privacy is inevitable. Reason? Because, although it raises the hackles of many, people don't really care, if they get a pony out of it.
Don't get mad at me. I'm just the messenger.
"Girls and women should not agree to be alone with a man, no matter the circumstances" ?
You have come across as disturbed throughout all these posts, but now you are scaring me.
It sounds like you do not trust yourself alone with a girl or woman, 'no matter the circumstances'.
You need help. I hope you get it.
Your suggestion would put 'girls and women' right into Taliban country, among other things.
You're right. I overstated it. The rest of the posting was an earnest effor to find ways to prevent rape. You could have commented on specific points. But you didn't.
It's one thing to disagree with me -- even if you're reticent to be explicit about that disagreement perhaps out of a concern that you may not have the wherewithal to back it up.
It's quite another to substitute that kind of substance with calling me disturbed, scary, in need of help. Those sorts of ad hominems are a poor replacement for reasoned discourse.
Is it that you don't know enough to challenge me on specific points? Come on, you can do it. Tell me why I'm scary. Or, are you scared to?
jackbutler5555:
I didn't see this statement of yours right away. I posted my reply but it didn't show up.
I will have to try again, soon.
"Girls and women should not agree to be alone with a man, no matter the circumstan
This is an absolutely unbelievable statement. Who are you? Now, really, who are you?
(Continued from another posting)
6. Over the years, prosecutors often try their best to even the playing field with various artifices, not the least of which is laying their case out before the public before the trial even begins. It happens all the time. That affects public opinion. So, when a jury is selected, they often end up with jurors who claim not to have read much about the arrest. If true, these folks do not often keep themselves informed. If false, they may have already formed an opinion and want to get on the jury, even if they have to lie about it. Nevertheless, the Bill of Rights tilts the playing field toward the defendant.
7. So, its important that those who are in favor of the presumption of innocence are willing to face popular movements to deemphasize this because of the depravity of the crime, or their dislike of the accused.
What do you do about rape? I'll address that in another posting.
Underlying the debate here and elsewhere is the issue of rape. Let me give a shot as describing the issue:
1. Rape isn't ordinarily witnessed. So, the rape victim is stuck trying to prove her case by other than eyewitness testimony. Many are frustrated by that, and understandably so. So they argue in favor of accepting other kinds of evidence, some of which is questionable.
2. In reaction to that, others argue that a rape can not have different set of standards of proof than any other crime.
3. Compounding this problem is the fact that rape accusations have been made against innocent (mostly) men. Some of them have been imprisoned only on the testimony of the victim. One recently was released due to the efforts of the Innocence Project. He had served something like 12 years. I believe he got $170,000 for his suffering.
4. People, like me, don't want to send innocent people to prison on the basis of a he-said, she-said case.
5. The framers of the Bill of Rights did not want to see that happen either. They created a number of amendments aimed at fixing the problems they encountered during British rule. One of those was the Fifth Amendment, which places the entire burden of proving someone guilty on the state. That means that "s/he must have done" or "who else could have done it" should not be enough to convict a defendant.
(Continued in another posting)
Please don't criticize the Polanski sympathizers too harshly. They are doing a service by tangentially publicizing the basic facts of the case:
i.e. that Polanski is a convicted child rapist.
Half of Europe does not know that.....l
Half of France does not know Polanski is a convicted child rapist. Even Sarkozy called him a "suspect". But Polanski has even worse troubles yet. The police have physical evidence such as the victim's panties (with sperm on them) which can be sourced for DNA and that was not possible in 1977.
He has expressed his predilection for underage girls to the french press several times over the years but now those publications are starting to print the facts of the case and the public is justifiably outraged.
He will never get the deal he had in 1977. Even the most sexually permissive countries treat rape, let alone child rape as a horrific crime.
This goes beyond morality..
We know now the traumatic nature of child rape and the long term consequences not just for the victim but for society moreso than in 1977.
Polanski might even have trouble with the rape by drugging charge which is still open against him.
And as Polanski himself said in 1998: "it's all my fault".
Congratulations for knowing what half of France knows or doesn't know.
Sarkozy recently got into trouble for referring to (former Prime Minister)
de Villepin as "guilty", while the defamation trial hasn't been concluded
yet. He is merely cautious now about characterizations.
@ "Jack Butler"
5:45 PM CST
http://tra
...I want everybody who really cares about getting a mere glimpse of the TRUTH in at least some of the so-called "facts" being bantered about this blog to click on to this AMAZING interview with the so-called "victim", Samantha Geimer, AND her attorney, Larry Silver...o
Thank's Jack for bringing this to our attention.
PS Jack, I'm a Michigan/E
Much luck to you and thanx again.
Saint James
I'm a Connecticu
You might have told the folks the Larry King show won't reinforce existing opinions all the time. A lot of folks here are resistant to changing their minds. The judge's misconduct didn't happen. Polanski never paid her. etc
The probation investigators report on smokinggun
@ "Jack Butler"
9:10 PM CST
Read my comment to "Picot" below.
...But it is not the "settlement" issue that fascinates me the most.
Do you recall Silver's description of the judges behavior ? Silver is smooth and inexact (what lawyer isn't on TV, literally in the "Lime Light")...
The implications of that are astounding : it means that Polanski (admittedly frightened after hearing of the judge spouting off that he was going to give him a "50 year" sentence for a third class misdemeanor, contrary to the plea bargain) did not actually "flee" but was told to get out of town...by somebody ??!!
"THE LAW IS NOT REALITY. THE LAW IS THEATER"
What is your read on this part of the transcript ?? !!
J.B.
10/30/09
jackbutler:
I've attempted to get a link posted ... not showing up.
You might be interested in this: check out google books, Major Principles of Media Law by Wayne Overbeck, pages 342-344, LA Times and Bill Farr, Mason case.
A detailed description of Farr's decade long legal jeopardy and his jail time with long incarceration a threat. Decade long....!!
I don't know if my suggestion has ever been posted about David Wells and Bill Farr:
David Wells was at Judge R's side feeding him prejudicial information about Polanski and Bill Farr was on the phone creating pressure on Judge R....
(Was David Wells Bill Farr's connection during the Manson trial. An associate DA was removed from the court room by Judge O for talking too much to reporters .... What was Farr's and Well's relationship?)
When Judge R spoke of Polanski to reporters, the country club, or elsewhere, did he refer to him as that little j..? (Perhaps Gore Vidal knew something about that...)
from the CCN interview:
KING: When you think back, he knew you were 13?
GEIMER: Yes, he did. I was almost 14, but I was 13. I think he knew how old I was.
Do you think it's natural that she said "I think he knew"?
@ "picott"
7:30 PM CST
Not a all. And this was not the only time she was being ...uh..."c
Larry King is not the keenist of journalist; very bad on follow-up questions. He is very limited by the commercial circus he has sold out to. His choice. None of our busness. But we DO have to put a rein on reliability here.
When you read the transcript, she was cagey (along with her lawyer), about whether she actually RECEIVED a settlement :
GEIMER : "...There was a settlement
SILVER : "...There was a settlement
Well daaahh. Now it's Larry King's turn folks...so does he ask the next obvious question :
"AND YOU COLLECTED ?"
Daahh again. He DOES NOT ask. So what'll we do ? Guess that she has collected ?
Two adverserial lawyers agreeing to a "settlement" is not tantamount to a plaintiff finally receiving the goods; although, granted, in most CIVIL actions (NOT tied to "crimminal), a "settlement" is generally paid inside of 10 to 30 days tops.
J.B.
10/30/09
I thought I read in the Larry Kin transcript, but apparently not. In any case, I read it somewhere that she said she got the money. She never revealed how much. But speculation is that it was $500K.
I am convinced that RP was framed.
He did not know at the time of the 'triste' tryst that SG was so young
(a fact that was also missed by Jacqueline Bisset and Helena Kallianiotes
- who would never knowingly offer wine to a child - and Anjelica Huston).
His admission in court (after checking with his attorney) only means
that this was part of the plea-bargain for a midemeanor (the prosecutor
calling it a felony notwithstanding).
In French, when you use the somewhat old-fashioned expression
"une affaire de moeurs" (not une affaire des moeurs), you only refer to
a sex scandal. It has very little to do with 'mores'.
In English, if you say "this sucks!", you want be blamed for alluding to
fellatio.
And "Justice est faite" only means 'Case closed' - not, whatever that
could mean, "Justice has been made".
Also, film festivals have enjoyed a statute of extra-terr
decades, which allows them to show 'Works in progress' (before the
conclusion of copyright issues) and to show films against the wishes
of their countries of origin (e.g. China). This is the reason why Switzerland
should be blamed for acting in very bad taste.
typo line 11: won't (will not) and not want
enough with the typo/spelling notices.
@ "Picott"
7:55 AM CST
Quote : "...I am convinced that RP was framed..."
Uh...You know something we don't ?
...This may have once been an additional rationale for Polanski to demand a trial in 1976, in place of the "plea bargain"; but without evidence, this possibility, after 30 years passing, stands moot. (Unless of course he : 1) demands a new trial, 2) get's a new trial and 3) comes up with previously elusive evidence that the "frame" you suggest did in fact occur.
...Uh...wo
These type of "frames" and "scams" probably occur several times daily around the world.
Regrettably, regardless which side of the argument you may lean, it remains apparent that the possibility of "being framed" was not a big ticket item in Polanski's "thought" process. The best picture you can paint for this (then) 40 year old director is that, whatever went on in that "dark" room at Jack Nicholson's house, it wasn't one of Polanski's brighter directorial moments.
Here in America, we call this "brainstem on overload".
[ I would have liked to have been the "fly on the wall" when Angelica Houston walked in.
Not a good day for ole Jack. ]
J.B.
10/31/09
James Ballard:
No place to reply to your post about my comment to picott.
"Entrapment" that's where it's been going for some. I don't agree.
I cannot bring myself to comment further to someone who refers to himself as "The Sanit." It feels like sure entrapment with an obviously superior being.
On the unlawful sex charge, Polanksi has some problems:
1. Semen found in the underwear. They didn't have DNA testing back then. So, they could not have established it belonged to Polanski. But it was barely detectable. Today, with DNA testing on the sample, it could establish if it belonged to him. In pre-trial, the defense or the prosecution could ask for the testing. Since it was barely detectable, the semen may have been from some other time. If the sample has deteriorated, the defense could say it was inconclusive. I can see Barry Scheck casting his spells on juroros.
2. His statements in the media. I'm told here that he admitted guilt. I haven't seen any admissions. But assuming he did, the prosecutor can just "roll the videotape.
3. He may also have admitted he knew she was under age. I'm told he did, but I haven't seen it.
He plead to the charge of sex with underage girl.
He knew she was about 13 years old. Looking at his photos of her, it is so obvious.
He also knew she had an older sister about 16 or 17.
He paid settlement of the civil lawsuit years after the flight.
Get serious.
Most men with any sense know what a child looks like.
The attitude of some who want to justify or condon what Polanski did is simply b.s. and that include the cries from Levi, the Film and Art community, the whole chorus. He went to trial and was due to be sentenced and split.
He sd. be thankful some directly involved did not hop a flight and shove him in onto a plane or something worse.
His life, on a real level, is far from charmed. Coming from Poland, dealing with Nazis, having his wife murdered by Manson, but that does not excuse it.
His arrogance about the incident is revolting. I understand how this woman wants it all to be over with and left alone. She is the victim not Polanski.
He was framed, he did not know her age, Get serious.
I have heard little mention of her parents, how, why she was there. They seem to be as quilty as Polanski.
Just an ugly situation.
picott:
Polanski met Samantha, her mother, and her older teenage sister -- who was 16 or 17. Polanski was in their home several times. Back and forth for the first shooting which took place right down the street from their home. Again for the second shooting he came for her, and when that was over he brought her home and came into the home to show her family the photos, or slides.
It is so clear that Samantha was the younger sister.
And it ought to be clear that a sophisticated man about town like Polanski doesn't get framed by a mother and her two teenage daughters. What, you think he's stupid?
Bissett and Houston have their own reasons for saying what they did. Obviously. Smantha's attorney has the photos Polanski took of her, and I think it is clear the photos will show a girl of a young 13 going on 14 years of age.
Somewhere along this tread the guy who calls himself a saint commented that the limo was driving Polanski and Samantha to the second shoot as if the girlfriend who was supposed to attend the shoot wasn't really there, for some reason.
THERE WAS NO LIMO. AND THAT MEANS THERE WAS NO LIMO DRIVER AS A WITNESS. Polanski drove his own car. Just like regular folks. (No witnesses for Polanski's behavior.)
Please someone correct the sainted one as I don't want to communicate with the devil: No limo.
I haven't seen the documentary yet. But I've seen a portion
of a RP contact sheet, from that documentary, SG appears
well-developed on those stills.
picott:
I just read your reply in my account. It doesn't show up here yet. Thank you for your comment. We may both be fans of Miss Marple. I've read all of Agatha Christie's books, as did my grandmother before me.
There is always more to this story. Never less.
The "watering hole" you mention, is new to me.
It is odd how exaggerations run with a story like this. It always strikes me as odd about politicians and their fabrications. But a case like Polanski's is political, isn't it.
Thank you for writing, picott.
@ "Dreamer Weaver" & "Picott
7:30 PM CST
Quote :
"Please someone correct the sainted one as I don't want to communicate with the devil: No limo."
...Gee...Y
uh...
"Picott", will you pleazze ask my favorite student what relevance any particular mode of transport has to do with wither or not the MOTHER should have seen to it AND insisted that her 13 year old daughter be "escorted" along with her friend, regardless WITHER the immediate mode of transport be a tricycle, taxi, harley or three bicycles ??!!
Then her "friend" would have been a "witness"; I believe THIS was my point : I don't care what mode of transport was available !!
OK. I confess ! I did read somewhere it was a LIMO....so
Now.
I already promised you and Jack I will go deeper into the links this weekend, and confirm what a fine job you, my soldiers, are doing. The Devil does have a life. The Devil has a business to tend to. The Devil has much more to do than just stoke the raging fires on this blog or that blog.
I will stay tuned in, I promise.
Ascending Angel 11/6/09
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
