Roman Polanski

(For General Discussion)

Moderators: Jason, Toothy, Tonyblack

Postby Trish » Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:13 pm

Trish
Member
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:54 pm
Location: Wintersville, Ohio

Postby Trish » Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:19 pm

poohcarrot wrote:My apologies for any offence caused.


It is much easier not to cause offense than to offer a sorta-kinda apology for any "caused."
Trish
Member
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:54 pm
Location: Wintersville, Ohio

Postby kakaze » Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:25 pm

Trish wrote:
poohcarrot wrote:My apologies for any offence caused.


It is much easier not to cause offense than to offer a sorta-kinda apology for any "caused."


I don't know...

I seem to be able to cause offense without even trying, many times without even knowing!
kakaze
Member
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:42 am

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:07 pm


Very good and the pertinent matter is the bail jumping which will have repercussions for all countries, so Switzerland is the best place to test and go through a formal, properly conducted extradition process.

Also pertinent in this is that Polanksi was convicted but never sentenced, so no re-trial for the originating crime which would be very difficult to re-try in any event in view of Ms. Geimer's settlement. It could still go either way, but the Swiss are very thorough and Polanski's pleas for bail/house arrest will not be too persuasive provided the US are very firm and prompt in putting their case - they've had long enough to put their case after all :(
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10317
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby Tina a.k.a.SusanSto.Helit » Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:35 pm

Poo-oo-oo-oo-ooh, I apologise for my over-reaction too. Please don't suspend your input on everything else... I think this has become way to personal and I want this particular argument to stop, but that doesn't mean we can't argue about other things, right?
Aha! So, Bob's yer uncle... very clever.
User avatar
Tina a.k.a.SusanSto.Helit
Member
 
Posts: 3885
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 7:25 pm
Location: Byron IL USA and The Quirm School for Young People ... it's genetic, you know

Postby Trish » Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:11 pm

Jan Van Quirm wrote:


Also pertinent in this is that Polanksi was convicted but never sentenced, so no re-trial for the originating crime which would be very difficult to re-try in any event in view of Ms. Geimer's settlement. It could still go either way, but the Swiss are very thorough and Polanski's pleas for bail/house arrest will not be too persuasive provided the US are very firm and prompt in putting their case - they've had long enough to put their case after all :(


That's another thing. Time has run, meaning 7 years, it's done, it's over.

Polanski agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge and did. The presiding judge agreed to a sentence and then wanted to "alter" that sentence. So Polanski scooted to Europe. However... his lawyer could have legally appeared fro him in sentencing.

A judge vacating his own sentence in a plea agreement is a NO in Crim Law.
Sharlene can tell you that on Monday.


This thing is grandstanding. There is no "justice" here, only headlines.

Use this money to track down the the sick bastards in neighborhoods and playgrounds --and churches.
Trish
Member
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:54 pm
Location: Wintersville, Ohio

Postby Catch-up » Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:47 pm

I read an article earlier (that I can't find now!) that the lawyer who said the judge was going to back out of the plea bargain said he lied to make the story better.

But, whether true or not, Polanski fled before actually being sentenced. The story of what the judge might have done is now just anecdotal. And even if it's true, it doesn't change the fact that he broke the law by running. That's what appeals are for and that's what he should have done if he thought the judge was doing something illegal or unethical. So, I don't really see the significance of this being brought up repeatedly in relation to the current situation.
User avatar
Catch-up
Member
 
Posts: 6345
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:19 am
Location: Michigan, U.S.A.

Postby Trish » Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:19 am

Well, no. What the judge did or didn't do is not anecdotal.

A judge is bound more by the law than any defendant. That's one reason why the missing paperwork is very relevant. And why judges 'pass on' their decisions and rationale after death.

Appeals are for criminal trial outcomes --NOT plea agreements.
Polanski would have had no legal recourse against the judge's "altered" decision.

Yes, RP plead guilty and, so, should have his balls cut off.
That does not answer the pertinent question: Where is the case file and judge's decision? They have to file plea bargains before sentencing because a plea bargain is binding on the State as well as the defendant.

Too many unknowns and questions.
Trish
Member
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:54 pm
Location: Wintersville, Ohio

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:47 am

The original crime is neither here nor there in this now.

The issue here is the bail jumping and nothing else, which is why the US is going to have a really hard time getting him back, because of everything that's happened between the conviction and now, including and especially the settlement with Ms. Geimer. The only thing outstanding from the conviction is the sentencing and with statutes of limitation and this seeming balls-up with the records on the plea bargain and conviction, which Polanski did comply with, up until he ran. The Attorney General (or whoever) will be on very shaky ground arguing for extradition from that direction.

Contravening bail by leaving the jurisdiction of the court and thus evading justice for so long is a huge issue for any nation, whether or not they have the same legal system as the country(ies) to which the convicted perpetrator flees. The case I mentioned of Ronald Biggs was ended only because he was very ill and needed treatment which he could not afford in Brazil. He contacted a newspaper saying he'd return and give them exclusive rights to his story if they paid his expenses and brought him back to the UK. He knew he would be arrested and then admitted into a hospital. That was in 2001. A few months ago he was released on compassionate grounds just before his 80th birthday, still having over 20 years left of his original sentence for his part in the Great Train Robbery (in today's money they stole £40 million sterling).

The Home Office repeatedly made attempts to secure his extradition from Brazil throughout his nearly 40 year run from justice. The Brazilan authorities never acceded to the requests to return a man who had been serving jail time for his part in a crime in which someone was so badly beaten there was every chance that a murder charge would have been added to the charge sheet. Biggs came back to the UK to die effectively - Brazil had nothing to do with his return to face justice.

In legal matters Switzerland is nothing like Brazil (who under their laws were perfectly within their rights to 'favour' Biggs and refuse his extradition), so perhaps the US will succeed, so this case is very important internationally. The world will be watching and the US case in this has several loopholes that can be exploited by Polanski's defence. Human rights legislation is a double-edged sword regrettably and the 'why now' factor is not going be of much help in what is essentially a very simple, cut and dried case of bail violation that is very, very old.
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10317
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby Catch-up » Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:27 pm

I didn't know that Trish. I can see your point.

Well, now we just have to wait and see. Lost paperwork or not, he was never sentenced for a crime he confessed to, and obviously never faced dealing with the charge resulting from running. I would imagine he'd still be extradited and at that point it would be up to prosecutors to make a case to hold him, and up to his defense team to use the issue of the lost paperwork. Again, we're just at a wait and see point I guess.
User avatar
Catch-up
Member
 
Posts: 6345
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:19 am
Location: Michigan, U.S.A.

Postby chris.ph » Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:48 pm

ive only read the last page so im not going to get involved in any arguements.
he is a peadophile on the run and should be shot.
obviously this is a personall point of veiw
measuring intelligence by exam results is like measuring digestion by turd length
User avatar
chris.ph
Member
 
Posts: 8456
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:52 am
Location: swansea south wales

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:26 pm

I think that's the general wish for most people in this Chris :wink:

It's scandalous how long he's managed to dodge this - very hard to tell how it'll fall this time.
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10317
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby Tina a.k.a.SusanSto.Helit » Sat Oct 03, 2009 12:19 am

Tina a.k.a.SusanSto.Helit wrote:Poo-oo-oo-oo-ooh, I apologise for my over-reaction too. Please don't suspend your input on everything else... I think this has become way to personal and I want this particular argument to stop, but that doesn't mean we can't argue about other things, right?


Please? I am really dealing with it better now and miss you... :cry:
Aha! So, Bob's yer uncle... very clever.
User avatar
Tina a.k.a.SusanSto.Helit
Member
 
Posts: 3885
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 7:25 pm
Location: Byron IL USA and The Quirm School for Young People ... it's genetic, you know

Postby swreader » Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:28 am

Minor update of interest. Not quite sure what or how this affects extradition proceedings (probably not at all), but it does further confirm that he was a sleaze ball then, and has been one ever since. From a news story today--

Film director Roman Polanski agreed to pay his sexual assault victim $500,000 to settle a lawsuit 15 years after he fled the United States, according to court documents provided to media outlets Friday.

The deal between Polanski and the victim, Samantha Geimer, was reached in October 1993. The terms of the settlement were confidential, but the amount was disclosed in court documents because of a two-year struggle to get Polanski to pay.

Court records do not indicate if Polanski, now 76, ever paid. The last court filing in August 1996 shows Polanski owed Geimer $604,416.22, including interest.

The full article can be readhere.
User avatar
swreader
Member
 
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:39 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A.

Postby Dotsie » Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:29 am

Tina a.k.a.SusanSto.Helit wrote:
Tina a.k.a.SusanSto.Helit wrote:Poo-oo-oo-oo-ooh, I apologise for my over-reaction too. Please don't suspend your input on everything else... I think this has become way to personal and I want this particular argument to stop, but that doesn't mean we can't argue about other things, right?


Please? I am really dealing with it better now and miss you... :cry:


Tina, I used to have a boyfriend in those dreadful pre-Mr Dotsie days, who would argue with me then sulk for days until I begged for forgiveness. Even if it wasn't my fault. So if I were you, I would just let him do his own thing until he's ready to come back. You'll feel better that way :wink:
What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!
User avatar
Dotsie
Member
 
Posts: 9385
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:07 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Broken Drum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests