Should DA Steve Cooley give up the case against Roman Polanski?
22 Comments

  • Max - 12 years ago

    California's Arnold Schwarzenegger could and should give Polanski a pardon after all Arnold also has slept with underage girls in California apparently and so there is a Double Standard in California in regards to sexual assault cases.

    

If you work in the movies based in California and later are California's Governor you get a free pass to have sex with minors and sexually assault women with impunity,

    but not so for Roman Polanski. Why is that pray tell?



    See Below for links



    The Groping Governor


    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-6270067-the-groping-governor.do



    The Clinton Barbarian


    http://www.liberty-ca.org/recallgraydavis/swartzenegger.htm


  • Sheryl - 13 years ago

    HE PLED GUILTY!!!!!!

    WTF is wrong with you Polanski-pod-people? HE PLED GUILTY!!!!!

    As far as I'm concerned, I don't care WHAT he did. He's a criminal who pled guilty, and then JUMPED BAIL.

    Besides sending him to jail for the absolute maximum time allowed for the crime HE PLED GUILTY TO (I just don't think that can be over-stated, the pleading guilty!) he needs to be tried for unlawful flight, and put through the US legal system for THAT crime.

    I am sick and tired of people defending this jackass.

  • JD - 13 years ago

    Drug and rape a 13 year old. Plea bargain as a celeb down to sex with minor. Run away when when it looks like you might actually do some time. Bring this coward back, file additional charges and send him to Pelican Bay where he belongs so he can make documentaries of his own experience and how it feels.

  • Dave - 13 years ago

    Besides the conviction for statutory rape -- which is legally binding by his plea. There is no "take it back" in the law, he is clearly guilty of forcible rape and of bail jumping. He needs to be thinking about spending the rest of his life in prison.

  • Calfed - 13 years ago

    "I think it would be best to wipe the slate clean, disregard everything Mr. Polanski admitted to or agreed to in the negotiated plea, and take this to trial. If the prosecution reneged on the deal, Mr. Polanski also reneged big-time."

    This sentiment belies a deep ignorance of the judicial process.

    Defendants make plea bargains with the prosecution. Usually they are allowed to plead to lesser charges, with a sentencing recommendation from the prosecution. That is what occurred here. The prosecution did not "renege" on anything.

    The sentencing recommendation is just that-a recommendation. The judge is NOT part of the prosecution and is NOT bound by the prosecution's recommendation as to sentence. I'm sure that Polanski's attorney explained that all to him.

    Polanski had already gotten the best deal he ever could have hoped for--a charge of "unlawful sex with a minor", rather than the much more serious charges of rape, molestation, furnishing controlled substances, etc, etc. Instead of going through with the agreement, Polanski bolted in the belief that he was going to get additional time. No one knows for sure whether he actually would have gotten additional time or if he did, how much additional time.

    The suggestion that the world now forget that Polanski has already allocuted to his crime--in court and on the record--is preposterous. The suggestion that Polanski be allowed to start all over with a clean slate in the legal system is silly and demonstrates an ignorance of the difficulties of prosecuting 30+ year-old cases. Whether the District Attorney was “honest” in plea bargaining this case down to an “unlawful sex” case is beside the point. The case was handled in this fashion at the behest of the victim and her family to spare her from having to testify.

    By fleeing, Polanski raped the victim yet again. He was given a light charge, in order to induce his guilty plea and spare the victim the anguish of publicly acknowledging what had occurred. He then failed to carry through with the bargain. He fled to Europe, where he lived in the lap of luxury and mocked the authorities and his victim. He needs to be extradited forthwith and sentenced for his original crime and charged with the additional crime of absconding.

    As for your suggestion that “wiping the slate clean” and attempting to prosecute Polanski for his crime 30+ years after the fact some how inures to benefit of the Prosecution , I can only say “bunk”. Sure, we live in a “post OJ, post Robert Blake, post Phil Spector world”. That didn’t prevent a So Cal jury from walking Michael Jackson. And I remind you that Spector had to be tried twice before he was convicted.

  • David - 13 years ago

    I think it would be best to wipe the slate clean, disregard everything Mr. Polanski admitted to or agreed to in the negotiated plea, and take this to trial. If the prosecution reneged on the deal, Mr. Polanski also reneged big-time.

    Doing this de novo probably wouldn't be in Mr. Polanski's favor. In this post O.J., post Robert Blake, post Phil Spector world, the balance of public opinion disfavors lenient treatment for celebrities whose narcissism or sense of entitlement leads them to commit major felonies. We have also become much more willing to condemn sexual abuse where there are gross disparities in age and power; much less inclined to sweep sordid details under the rug.

    After reading the transcript of the girl's testimony, I don't see how an honest D.A. could plea bargain this down to unlawful intercourse. It certainly does look like RAPE rape -- to coin a phrase -- because there was no consent. Furthermore there were aggravating factors such as plying the girl with drugs and alcohol, and Mr. Polanski taking it so far beyond simple intercourse.

  • Calfed - 13 years ago

    Looks like another apologists for the pedophile rapists just crawled out of his hole.

    Hey, Cosmo, we don’t need to vacate Polanski’s guilty plea—he entered into it freely and of his own volition. And unlike his victim, he was an adult at the time that he did it. Now let him accept the consequences for his crime and his plea.

    Your silly comparison to most people’s insistence that Polanski pay for the crime that he pled guilty to and the Salem witch trials tells me everything I need to know about your moral compass. It isn’t a “witch hunt” to expect a person who has pled guilty to a heinous crime to hang around for the sentencing.

    Frankly, your insistence “Every damn one of you would have done the same thing in similar circumstances” sounds like projection on your part. Speak for yourself, pal. Most of us wouldn’t have drugged and raped a 13 year-old to begin with.

    BTW, Polanski never had a “plea deal” with the judge—he had it with the prosecutors. The judge was not bound by the “plea deal”, ergo, the judge was not “reneging” on anything. That is the chance that a defendant takes when he commits a heinous crime, and then accepts a plea bargain for a much reduced charge.

    If Polanski wanted to cross-examine the victim, he had the chance to go to trial and cross-examine her to his heart’s content. He chose another path—to accept a plea bargain for a reduced offense and then take it on the lam instead of accepting the judgment of the court. Who can blame the victim for not “wanting to go through all that” again? There are so many sorry apologists coming out of the woodwork, like you, defending the indefensible.

  • cosmo panzini - 13 years ago

    All you junior-league witch-hunters out there need to put down the lanterns and pitchforks and take a deep breath. Polanski lammed out because the judge in his case was about to renege on a plea deal and give him some heavy time. Every damn one of you would have done the same thing in similar circumstances. Also, the young girl involved was never cross-examined in a trial. All her testimony was given in a grand jury proceeding; that is, an unrebutted single-person account of the alleged incident. If Steve Cooley is so insistent that Polanski "pay" for his crime, then vacate the original plea deal and fight the whole thing all over again, this time in front of a trial court with rebuttal and cross-examination and all the rest. Does anyone think the woman involved, or anyone else for that matter, wants to go through all that? Let the thing go. It's a huge waste of time and money for no good end.

  • Investigator - 13 years ago

    Cooley will never get tough on Polanski. Steve Ipsen had the dirt on Cooley during the last election and no one cared.

    Go to the website

    WhyAmIdead.com

    see the deals Cooley made to go easy on sex preditors. He is a discrace and will likely do nothing to Polanski. I am sure Polanski knows the same defense attorneys who funded Cooley's campaign. The track record speaks for itself

  • LAtty - 13 years ago

    Now her Mother's to blame? Why not ask Anjelica Huston who was there in person as a "chaperone" and gave cover to the bogus photoshoot in the first place.

  • Greg0ire - 13 years ago

    Does anyone else see the irony in Woody Allen defending Roman Polanski?

  • Sky7Bear - 13 years ago

    Looks like the elite want to do what they always seem to want--be above the law. Those who think this slimebag should get off the hook are telling the public just what kind of humans they are--slimebags themselves. Shame on all of them.

  • LindaK - 13 years ago

    In all the fury surrounding this case, why was this chld's mother never charged with child endangerment? Polanski should serve his time, the victim as served hers -- but Mama? She put her child in this place, pimped her to Polanski, even if she believed he only want photos, and nothing happens to her? And, please, what sort of pictures did she think he wanted? No one is that naive.

  • Girl - 13 years ago

    What disturbs me is that all these Hollywood producers are actually defending a child rapist. Woody Allen defending this guy? Are you kidding me? These men who run Hollywood think they can do anything to a young woman like this and get away with it. I wish we could put the whole lot of them in jail. Why are we even watching films made by these disgusting slobs?

  • Isa - 13 years ago

    I'm so angry, I don't understand how people can defend Polanski. It's absurd. It is just horrible what happened to that child. There is no excuse for what he did NONE...NONE. Children have to be protected, and an example is needed, for all those people like Luna M that thinks that this is acceptable. In the future...I hope those abused children without protection in undeveloped countries can have justice and a normal live too.

  • Mustang - 13 years ago

    Amazing to watch so many in people bend over willingly for Roman Polanski. Where were they when he was forcing himself on a 13 year old girl?

  • ? - 13 years ago

    Dear Luna M: seek help immediately!

  • Diane Jay - 13 years ago

    How can anyone defend Polanski? I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. He must be brought here and tried.

  • Jeff - 13 years ago

    It doesn't matter if Polanski has "turned his life around." It doesn't matter if the victim has forgiven him, or asked for an end to the case. And it doesn't matter if taxpayer dollars are scarce.

    What matters is the fair application of the law and justice. Polanski violated the law and fled justice. There is no statute of limitations on that, or there shouldn't be.

    If a society excuses unlawful behavior, unlawfulness will permeate that society.

  • Calfed - 13 years ago

    Nice deflection, LunaM.

    This wasn't the mother's fault. This wasn't the LAPD's fault. This was Roman Polanski's fault.

    "He entered a plea bargain, i.e. wanted to serve time and pay damages for it."

    That's rich. If he wanted to serve time, why did he flee the day before his sentencing? Isn't it true that he fled because he DIDN'T want to serve time?

    Some people, like you, LunaM, apparently think that a rich, well known defendant should be able to "serve time" in the lap of luxury in the south of France. And for Christ's sake, be honest about what he did. He drugged a 13 year old girl and then anally rape her.

    It is because of people like you that there are two standards of justice in SoCal--one for celebrities and one for the rest of us.

  • Luna M - 13 years ago

    Yes, what he did was wrong. And he admitted to it 32 years ago. He entered a plea bargain, i.e. wanted to serve time and pay damages for it.
    Despite the absolute abhorrent act that he did, some questions remain:
    a) How does the MOTHER of a 13-years old agree to let her daughter spend time alone with an obviously disturbed and traumatized man (his wife was killed in a horrific tragedy)?
    b) This man has turned his life around as a consequence.
    c) The LAPD is hungry, as always, for high-profile cases for personal gain and publicity. (Some of them end up as consultants on some movie / TV set.) This is a waste of time and money. How about the white-collar criminals who ruined the American economy? How are they prosecuted?

  • 2 cents - 13 years ago

    perhaps we should mention that this involves a 40-something year old who drugged a 13-year old and then anally raped her despite her repeated demands that he stop - this is a better description than one that suggests it was only "unlawful" because of the age of the victim and implies "consent"

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment