Polanski To Offer Cash and Cuddliness For Release
It was either that title or, "Polanski Offers Release for Cash and Cuddliness." A toss up, right? Oh, and for those who haven't read the transcript of the victim's testimony,"cuddliness" is how the 13-year-old girl referred to Polanski putting his mouth on her vagina.
Yes, according to The Hollywood Reporter, "A French lawyer for director Roman Polanski, imprisoned in Switzerland, says a new bail offer will be filed Monday and it will be a 'very, very significant' cash amount."
After Switzerland was done peeing itself with laughter the lawyer went on to tell Switzerland not to worry about Polanski running because he would "never behave like a fugitive." Meaning, he won't illegally flee prosecution from a country where he has a home and he won't steer clear of that country's borders and authorities for thirty years. The lawyer then told Switzerland that Roman is available for babysitting.
Some of you are probably wondering why I'm still writing about this. I don't know, maybe it was Bernard-Henri Levy's piece. Who is Bernard Henri-Levy, you ask? A philosopher. That's right, a philosopher. He's actually a writer, but when you're narcissistically unaware of the existence of the other humans you describe yourself as a "philosopher." Anyway, in this one piece (click if you must) he gives us a list of "shamefuls," like how "It is shameful to throw a 76-year-old man into prison for unlawful sex committed 32 years ago." Oh, that reminds me, "philosopher" is also French for douchebag.
The fact that Polanski himself is the reason for the 32 year delay in prosecution is completely lost on Polanski's apologists. As retired Judge H. Lee Sarokin said so eloquently, "It would mean that the fugitive who is most successful in eluding capture gains an advantage over one who is less successful, which, in turn, would mean that the wealthier criminal would have a greater chance of avoiding extradition than the poorer one." Let's also not forget that the flight from prosecution was not a crime that was committed 32 years ago but was in fact a crime committed every single day Polanski remained a fugitive.
But, of all the Polanski ironies, the greatest one of all is the sheer audacity, the outrageousness, the tone-deafness, and the stunning arrogance of offering a "very, very significant" amount of cash for release, after the court has expressly denied bail. In America, we have a name for that. Bribery. But don't worry, Roman Polanski would never do that.
Favorite
Reply
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
I am sick of people complaining about the possibility of Polanski having to serve prison time. Let's put this in perspective: Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison for bilking investors out of money. Is it too much to ask that Polanski should serve 24 months in prison (if that is the max) for the drugging and rape of a minor???
But I'll tell you what. Just to show that I am not a bad guy, I would be satisfied with Polanski serving 20 months in prison...b
Amazing, isn't it, how this whole Polanski H.P. battle
is coming to a standstill
of 'philosopher' and 'bribery' are leaving the posters
speechless. 'Cuddliness' is a nice word though and
I hope it will catch lioke wildfire.
the whole point of the issue: which no one -- pro or con -- seems to mention: is the constitutional issue of "indefinite confinement for evaluation"
the argument over the plea agreement is not the issue: yes, the judge can override a plea agreement:
but, in this case: after polanski had been released with a positive psychological recommendation after 46-day psychological evaluation confinement: the judge told the defense and prosecutors that he was getting pressure from the media, and would send the defendant back into confinement for further evaluation -- until the complete 90-day evaluation period was served: after which: the defendant would be required to submit to "voluntary deportation"
if the defendant refused: the judge threatened to keep the defendant in "indefinite confinement for evalution" -- until the defendant agreed to deportation
thus, the defendant cannot appeal: because no sentence was passed; and, even if the evaluation was eventually terminated by a higher judicial authority: the judge threatened to sentence the defendant to up to 50-years. so, the defendant fled the jurisdiction
both sides are getting wound up over the pros and cons of this particular defendant's crimes, predilictions, character, history, professional legacy, etc. -- but, the issue is purely about whether justice is served by a situation where the defendant has already been released after positive psychological evaluation: and must re-submit indefinitely: essentially blackmailed to leave the country, or face 50 years in jail; this isn't the same as some hypothetical defendant failing to appear
yours truly,
sophocles_jr
Many of the things you mentioned, Sophocles Jr, occurred as a result of the plea bargain agreement which is a matter of public record.
Have you read it?
The judge was not bound to release Polanski after 42 or 90 days...and if he wanted to put a condition on the sentence, such as voluntary deportation, that would not have precluded Polanski from appealing the sentence..
Now it appears that Polanski will never see the light of day...and if that occurs, many of us will feel that justice was served.
you write:
"Now it appears that Polanski will never see the light of day...and if that occurs, many of us will feel that justice was served."
****
so, are you saying that even though the victim wants the case dismissed; and the los angeles da is only asking for two more years -- you want: life imprisonment -- with no lights and no windows?
mankind born free
though everwhere in chains
-- rousseau
the ground of liberty
is gained by inches
-- jefferson
See Jeff Norman's Profile
HuffPost's Pick
"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
never see the light of day? for a sexual encounter he had 30 years ago?
Did he hurt the girl?
It amazes me how hard people throw stones
Good stuff, Sophocles. There are some details in there I didn't have. Do you have a source?
polanski's autobiography: _roman_
What is truly shameful is that the victim's own pleas for dismissal of the case are continuously ignored.
...and they should be ignored.
Not to justify Polanski's despicable behavior, but would somebody please explain to me what responsible parent would allow their young daughter to spend time with some older man like Polanski? (Corrected for typos).
To be fair the vast majority of sexual assaults on minors are by relatives or close family friends.
Statistically speaking, it's far more dangerous to leave your child alone with a male relative, including their own father, than with a relative stranger (such as the piano teacher I was left alone with an hour a week when I was a kid, or my math tutor, or my male teachers when I stayed after school for extra help).
Not that I don't see your point. Modeling shoots tend to have a sexualized environment, especially in Hollywood. I wouldn't leave my kid alone unchaperoned for an LA modeling shoot in a million years.
Thank you Black Cat for your meaningful reply. Your points are taken as well.
She testified she thought her daughter would be accompanied by the daughter's girl friend. Even if that's not true -- it's not corroborated -- I think she knows whether or not she made a mistake. Second guessing the mother, particularly at this stage, is unkind.
and throwing an old man in jail for a crime committed decades ago is also 'unkind'. prison is about rehabilitation - he clearly doesn't need rehabilitation. prison is about protecting society - he clearly is no threat to society. prison is a waste of time and money if the sole reason is vengeance. it will only make a hateful public happy for a mere 30 seconds...
I think for the mother to allow her daughter to go to the company of a strange man is unkind.
jackbutler5555:
More blame of the mother going on here.
When or if more witnesses are deposed, it may be proven true what Samantha reported during the King interview.
--Polanski made a personal appeal to the mother to photograph Samantha as part of a contract he had as an associate editor for the Paris Vogue magazine.
--Samantha's mother intended to go to the photo shoot on the second day.
--The first day, the shoot took place in a wooded area down the street from Samantha's home.
--At the time of the second shoot, Samantha, her mother, Polanski picked out clothing changes in their home.
--Polanski rejected the mother's intent to join them for the shoot at the last minute claiming Samantha would be too self conscious with her mother watching.
--Samantha's girlfriend would accompany her instead.
--At Polanski's car, he told the girlfriend that that wasn't going to work and sent her home.
-----Samantha's mother didn't know that her daughter was unaccompanied.
If deposed, Samantha, her mother, and her girlfriend would testify. Let's see what they have to say. If/when they get the chance.
Meanwhile, it's damn nasty to continue to make attacks on what happened by casting around blame where it doesn't belong.
One person committed a crime.
It is transparent when jackbutler claims that it is "unkind" to second guess the mother ("I think she knows whether or not she made a mistake") while mentioning that the mother's testimony is not "corrobora
Killing the mother with kindness.
It sounds like you are trying to justify Polanskis despicable behavior by redirecting the blame toward the victims mother.
winnningticket:
Blame is your game. Wrongly.
One person committed a crime.
Would somebody explain to me what responsible parent would allow their daughter to spend over at some older man's house?
See my comment above.
What 44 year old man would rape a pubescent child?
There are plenty of people attempting to redirect the finger pointing away from Polanski but he is the only one who committed a crime here.
Polanski fled the Nazis in Krakow and that worked out for him pretty well. In America he fled an unstable judge undergoing a meltdown. Even the prosecution mistrusted Judge Rittenband at the end, and complied in getting Rittenband removed from the case. There's another ruptured water main in L.A. right now, spewing volumes of water while L.A. is suffering water restrictions during a drought. Perhaps Los Angeles has better ways to spend resources than hurling them at a case that the victim is appealing to dismiss.
Why didn't Polanski return when Rittenbrand was removed from the case?
Perhaps he no longer trusted the U.S. justice system? Perhaps he conflated his experience with this judge with the Nazis? Prior to fleeing he had complied with every hoop and hurdle the judge had put him through. Add to it the prosecutorial misconduct in the form of inappropriate ex parte communications with the judge (now being denied) and the victim's appealing for dismissal and it seems like it's a waste of time and resources to pursue this further. Polanski does not constitute an ongoing menace to society. We have plenty of active cases and issues to pursue that will benefit society, not waste its resources.
Only Polanski could give a fulsome answer to that question. But I would speculate that Polanski didn't trust the LA County Judicial System. Do you know anything about the case, anything about what happened, the long term and continuous turmoil and corruption?
Comparing Polanksi's fleeing Nazis in WWII Poland with fleeing his conviction in the U.S. before sentencing was passed is ridiculous. I feel reasonably certain that his exit from Poland had nothing whatsoever to do with having pled guilty to having sex with a child, but not wishing to stick around for his sentence.
That L.A. doesn't always spend its time and resources the way you see fit is probably an argument only you find compelling. And, for what it's worth, Mr. Polanski's conviction was for a crime that was prosecuted by the people of the state of California, not the victim.
At the time Polanski fled, the judge had the leeway to sentence him for up to 50 years. Polanski and his attorney had lost faith in this judge, who had jacked Polanski around mercilessly, trying to please the media. Prosecuting attorney Roger Gunson had also lost faith in this judge. Polanski fled and has been essentially in exile from the United States since. People like you want him back to pay for a crime that his victim has forgiven. That's your right, but I have a different opinion. He has made monetary reparation to his victim. He has been exiled. Why waste more on this? For your satisfaction? So Steve Cooley can save face for the L.A. District Attorney's office? To deter sexual predators? Good luck.
this comparison is disgusting even if you don't agree with the judge's actions.
My sister was arrested and prosecuted for having less than one gram of marijuana in her possession. This certainly was a less harmful crime than even the lightest of charges that Polanski faced. I certainly think the illegality of marijuana is shameful. I think tax dollars being spent to prosecute someone for less than one gram of marijuana shameful. My sister certainly found her treatment overzealous and shameful.
But never on her worst day would she have had the conceit to compare herself to a Nazi victim.
The conceit and faux victimization of the spoiled elite will never cease to amaze me.
here's the difference:
You can have the opinion that a law is unjust, be it the illegality of sleeping with 13 year olds or the use of marijuana. And you can have a dislike of our justice system, say, disliking the fact that judges have the ability to revoke plea bargains. You are free to fight to have these laws and rules changed.
But at the end of the day, you are aware of the law and are aware of how the justice system works. So even if you don't believe that it was forcible rape, you're still left with the fact that Polanski could have easily avoided all this by not sleeping with a 13 year old, just as my sister could easily have not gotten arrested by not smoking marijuana.
Whereas a Jew fleeing from the Nazis is not being hunted for an action they took that they could easily have refrained from. They were hunted for no other reason than existing.
As unfair as the legal system is in her view, my sister still had the ability to accept that she at the end of the day she was aware of the potential consequences of her actions, and she smoked pot anyways. She recognized that what she was experiencing was PROSECUTION not PERSECUTION. She understood the difference between the two. Funny how she had the maturity to accept this at age 17 that Polanski and his defenders lack as fully grown adults.
Polanski actually fled the Nazis. I'm assuming your sister did not, and therefore it would not be a logical comparison. Polanski may or may not have conflated his flee from Krakow with to his flee from Rittenband. I don't know, but there's cause here for speculation. I absolutely agree with you that it's a waste to prosecute for marijuana possession, especially such a minute amount. I think this will change nationwide soon. I hope so. We may be bankrupt in California but we're progressive on marijuana issues..
It's nice to know someone is posting who is familiar with the facts, as I see from your other postings. You may find it difficult when you have a discussion with someone who doesn't, including the HP bloggers who haven't done the homework.
Who is disagreeing with what facts they present? Their statements about Polanski having fled Nazis and the American justice system are both correct. That the prosecution even had problems with the judge is correct. I don't know about the water main personally but I will take the poster's word for it that that is honest.
her statements about the judge's state of mind and America having better use of their resources are not quantifiable as correct or incorrect because they are opinion statements, and Alicia certainly has the right to the opinions, and what's more I find these opinions reasonable even if I don't necessarily agree with them.
My only problem with her comment was her comparing his flight from Nazis with his flight from the US as if they were equivilant circumstances. Even if I were to completely agree that the courts were utterly unfair in regards to Polanski (as I do with my own sister), that still doesn't mean that mean that Polanski fleeing Nazi Europe because of his ethnicity is a comparable circumstance to him fleeing America for a crime he pled guilty to.
Perhaps you have a better way to spend you time than posting on here.
Or maybe those are both false arguments.
I am a Swiss citizen, but I am not sure that we have bail for rapists. What Europeans do have in most countries is statute of limitations, that's why many are confused that someone can still be prosecuted.
I'm sure Switzerland's statute of limitations is effective for prosecuting a crime. Mr. Polanski pled guilty to his crime, then fled the U.S. prior to sentencing. Having been found guilty, either by a trial or by agreement, he violated the conditions of his guilty plea when he fled the jurisdiction. No statute of limitations addresses the unilateral decision of the convicted felon to flee; at least not of which I am aware.
statue of limitations only apply before the person is convicted. After someone is convicted, there is no such thing as statue of limitations on them serving a sentence. If you are a fugitive from justice, as this article points out, every day that you are free you are breaking the law by remaining a fugitive.
In the United States, I believe the Statute of Limitations is between the date of the crime and the date of the arrest. Since Polanski was arrest the same day as the crime, the statute of limitations doesn't apply.
this isn't a prosecution after the expiration of the statute of limitations, he was already prosecuted and accepted a plea bargain. He fled in order to avoid completing his (very limited) sentence, therefor he is a fugitive.
The judge boasted to others Polanski's in it for life. He said to some 50 years.
Polanski was not convicted of rape.
He pled guilty to sex with a minor, also known as statutory rape.
Michael:
Your take on the definition of "philosopher" reminds me of Steve Martin's old stand-up routine from the late '70s when he used to play university campuses. He'd say to the audience: "When I was in college, I was a philosophy major. Who here is a philosophy major? Ah, you can always tell who the philosophy majors are; they're so confused they can't decide whether to put their hands up or down."
See Jeff Norman's Profile
Michael, when Switzerland's Justice Ministry rejected Polanski’s previous bail offer, they complained it wasn’t a cash offer.
Given that it’s common for a jailed defendant to try to come up with whatever bail is required, I’m left wondering why you believe that Polanski’s attempt reflects “stunning arrogance” and “bribery.”
"In America we have a name for that." I didn't say Switzerland, I said America. You offer cash for release it's a bribe in my book. Now, my book isn't the law book so who the hell cares what I think. But I think it so I write it.
As for the arrogance, if you're left wondering why some of us may think that Polanski and his attorneys are arrogant to offer lots of cash for release, to assert that he would "never behave like a fugitive," even though that's all he's done for three decades, then my guess is that no matter how I answer that you're still going to be left wondering.
Michael, of course, he'd run, if he could. But in this day and age, he can't. Technology would allow electronic monitoring. I realize your book is not the law book, but bail is a law subject. If you think Polanski deserves punishment and therefore this incarceration fits the content of your book, it's hard to argue that it doesn't. You wrote the book.
But there is no justification for stating implicitly that because you don't agree with the law, the law should be ignored.
The Swiss do not believe Polanski should be indicted. They may come to that conclusion but they haven't yet. It's like the presumption of innocence. Maybe you don't have presumption of innocence in your book. But the Bill of Rights does -- which may not be in your book either.
If the Swiss are confident that they have the means of preventing his escape, then holding him would be punishment before the reason for that punishment is established.
Of course, if the Swiss think bail is a bribe, I'd be astonished. I think your response is emotional. If you got arrested, you'd be making bail, wouldn't you?
See Jeff Norman's Profile
I think the point of requiring a lot of cash is that it would significantly reduce the possibility of him fleeing again should he be released. Unless certain individuals would be enriched by the arrangement, the fundamental purpose of the bail is no different than in any other case. So where exactly do you see bribery in this case?
As I said, Polanski is responding to a signal he got from Swiss authorities. It’s not as if he asked for special criteria to be applied to him. Wouldn’t almost anyone try to meet whatever the requirements seem to be? How does Polanski’s fugitive history transform such a natural attempt into arrogance? In other words, why is Polanski arrogant for doing what others would do if presented with the same apparent requirement?
Why don’t you simply answer my fair and pertinent questions instead of assuming that I would never understand you? Talk about arrogance!
Jeff Norman:
You comment that the girl may not have resisted sex and that would mean to you that sex was consensual -- leaving out the part that that's ridiculous because a 13 year old cannot "consent" in legal or moral terms. Let's change things up a bit and see what you think.
13 year old boy wants to try out for the wrestling team. The coach is known for getting boys trained for the Olympics. Boy wants to please the coach. Boy doesn't have a dad living at home so the older man's attention means even more than it might. Boy's mother meets the coach, the coach comes over to the house. Coach meets boy's older brother, 16 years old. Coach and the boy meet a second time at the coach's own private gym to begin training. Coach offers boy a "supplement" but the boy feels woozy after taking it. Coach gets physical and boy feels uncomfortable, but has the desire to please. And has an ambition. He resists, says "no." Not forcefully. But he was nervous. He thinks he said "no" two or three times. But he didn't fight.
The coach takes it as far as we have heard in another story.
When it was over, boy rushed out the door to leave. He was seen by the department's secretary but he hurried to get to the coach's car for a ride home. He cried. Later, the secretary reported that the boy looked 18 years old.
Statutory rape?
See Jeff Norman's Profile
Rape and unlawful sex with a minor (aka statutory rape) are two separate crimes. The latter prohibits sex with a minor irrespective of force, and the former involves force irrespective of age. To recognize that distinction is not to approve of an adult having sex with a minor, nor is it to say that a 13-year-old is mature enough to have sex.
To put it another way, consent (or the lack of it) represents the difference between rape and unlawful sex with a minor (aka statutory rape).
There are discrepancies between Samantha Geimer’s version of what happened, and Roman Polanski’s version.
I don’t think there's enough publicly known information to conclude who should be believed.
In public discourse it’s customary to distinguish a mere accusation from a conviction or confession. Those who wish to disregard the custom may do so, but should explain what justifies disregarding it only in this case. The intensity of one’s emotions, and how one feels about particular evidence or a particular accuser, are usually regarded as irrelevant factors when it comes to determining what makes it appropriate to publicly assert, as if it were an undisputed fact, that someone committed a crime.
It’s okay to argue that the girl told the truth about resisting and being drugged. But those allegations shouldn’t be asserted as if they were undisputed facts, because Polanski disputes them.
That Polanski had sex with Geimer is a fact, because Polanski admitted it.
Still have a beef with me?
Keep on writing Mr. Seitzman; I am always grateful to read a voice of sanity regarding this case, especially after reading Bernard-Henri Levy's pieces.
Michael, you are right on target, bro. It makes me want to freaking hurl that Levy calls himself a philosopher and then further compounds his pomposity with the use of the term "unlawful sex" instead of anal rape.
Levy's terminology is consistent with the State of California's. Of course, it doesn't matter to you. The anal sex is a he-says, she-says that the prosecutor decided not to pursue. Of course, if you don't like Polanski, you can call it whatever pleases you.
If you are ever interested in a broader knowledge of the facts of the case -- which of course, I don't think you are, you might do some homework. Read the report of a disinterested investigator -- the probation officer, assigned to gather facts and recommendations for the judge. It's on smokkinggu
You might do a search on Judge Rittenband, who was replaced because of his misconduct. But that would be work, too.
The most basic of facts:
Is it illegal in California to have sex (consensual or not) with a minor? Yes.
Is a judge (crooked or not) allowed to reject a plea bargain? Yes.
Did Polanski flee before he could be sentenced for his alleged crime(s)? Yes.
Regardless of any emotions surrounding this case, those points are indisputable are they not?
There's a reason why that fool is constantly a target of Noël Godin. He's a modern day aristocrat, born into wealth, with the exact same pompous and arrogant attitudes that got the mobs in the French Revolution so fed up. A white man who took to comparing the implementation of a legal action in court, where Polanski will have a fair trial, to being the same as "lynching.
I have this notion any "modern day aristocrat" who agreed with you wouldn't be a "fool."
Sorry, boyo.
That is what Polanski is convicted of.
He would never be convicted of rape.
If you knew what you were rattling on about, you would know this.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
