[Gossip] Roman Polanski's Lawyer, Hollywood Celebs Trying To Get Him Free
Posted by Ashish on 09.28.2009
Big wigs joining forces to get Polanski's freedom back...
Roman Polanski's lawyer was on Good Morning America today (video above) and talked about how he is working on getting Polanski free after the famous director was finally arrested over the weekend in Switzerland after a 30 year run from his unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor charge in the U.S.
Meanwhile, the BBC reports that a bunch of big wigs are supporting Polanski and trying to help get him his freedom, including Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein who is likely funding Polanski's next film and said the following.
"We're calling on every film-maker we can to help fix this terrible situation."
Even French President Sarkozy is following the case "with great attention".
the dude raped a young girl. you've gotta do time for that. just because his films are good, it doesn't mean he can be an exception.
Posted By: jim (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 02:56 PM
Seriously? Does Hollywood have no shame? This man PLED guilty. He owned up to it. He copped a plea bargain that he admitted have sexual intercourse with a minor after he gave her alcohol AND drugs. His crimes are terrible but defending him is sickening.
Posted By: Guest#7496 (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 02:58 PM
This is beyond ridiculous. This guy sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl, admitted it, then ran away and people are supporting him? What kind of sense does that make? I hope Polanski spends the rest of his life in jail.
Posted By: Bobby (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 02:59 PM
"We're calling on every film-maker we can to help fix this terrible situation."
Unless these film-makers have a time machine and a pair of bolt cutters, this situation is never going to be fixed. Let 'im rot.
Posted By: Speedy Gill-zales (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 03:03 PM
Hollywood is a truly fucked up place if people will actually defend this creepy little fucker.
It's been said, he admitted it all so why does he get any sympathy?? Weinstein is a douche, the only terrible situation is what he did to a then 13 year old girl.
Posted By: dennett316 (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 03:18 PM
Polanski needs to suffer the consequences of his actions, even if they occured years ago and even though the woman that he raped has forgiven him. Being forgiven doesn't mean a "get out of jail for free." Bring him back to the states and make him do his time. Do the crime, do the time.
Steven R. Covey said "While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions." Apparently Polanski thinks to can do both and there are plenty of people who think the same damn thing. Once the consequences have been removed from the action, why should he care. It will be a bad example for others who think they can do things like raping young girls and then getting away with it and then winning the praise of the Hollywood elitists and their sycophants.
Posted By: urroner (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 03:19 PM
Harvey Weinstein said "We're calling on every film-maker we can to help fix this terrible situation."
The only terrible situation I see here is Polanski trying to escape the consequences of his actions and a bunch of hoity-toities defending the creep.
Posted By: Guest#9706 (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 03:21 PM
Fits right in with the typical disconnect from the hollywood 'elite' Should be unbelievable, but its damn near predictable.
Posted By: no option (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 03:23 PM
Bring this guy back to the US so he can go into general population and have justice done on him. I can't believe this man is being supported for raping and drugging a minor.
Posted By: Captain_America (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 03:25 PM
actually the sex was concensual (did i spell that right?) it was statutory rape though obviously
Posted By: Guest#0057 (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 03:45 PM
Hollywood makes me sick. Fuck them. We're living in the real world and know you CANNOT get away with this.
Posted By: Propagandhi (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 03:58 PM
Hey Roman, just die like me and all will be forgiven!
Posted By: Michael Jackson (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 04:13 PM
Boycott The Weinsteins.
Posted By: Todd Vote (Registered) on September 28, 2009 at 04:15 PM
Look kiddies! You too can be a confessed rapist and still have everyone love you! All you gotta do is make a few artistic films.
Fuck Hollywood. And ya know what? fuck America, too.
Posted By: Rant Casey (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 04:17 PM
What are the film makers going to do, re-write history? They should throw his plea out and make him go to trial. How can people in Hollywood stick up for this guy? He gave her drugs and had sex with a 13 year old PERIOD.
Posted By: Matt (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 04:22 PM
I agree with Todd Vote. Boycott it is.
Posted By: MB (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 05:07 PM
**********
actually the sex was concensual (did i spell that right?) it was statutory rape though obviously
**********
No, you're wrong. A child of that age, under our law, is not capable of making an informed decision like that and consenting. Not to mention any "consent" was plied out via drugs and booze.
Posted By: Scott B (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 05:12 PM
They're not saying that he was innocent. They're arguing that he was arrested unlawfully on foreign soil.
Posted By: Will (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 07:53 PM
He settled withthe girl the girl is over it she's not a little girl any more the end
Posted By: the rev (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 09:16 PM
Lock him up in a cell next to Manson.
Posted By: Cabbage (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Read the grand jury tesitmony you idiot, she told that sick bastard "no" multiple times. There was no consent.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 10:40 PM
How can you defend a guy who pleads guilty to the crimes he's accused of? The girls grand jury testimony of what he did to her was sick! Champagne, drugs, rape and then forced anal sex. All of that with a 13 year old girl. Takes a big man to do that kind of stuff. Deserves prison so he can find out what forced anal sex is like from the receiving end.
Posted By: jdmpjm (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 11:57 PM
"Lock him up in a cell next to Manson.
Posted By: Cabbage (Guest) on September 28, 2009 at 10:06 PM"
LOL --- damn, that's funny!
Well played, sir.
Posted By: beowulf (Guest) on September 29, 2009 at 02:03 AM
Polanski drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old girl. She cried and repeatedly begged him to stop.
Posted By: Cliff (Guest) on September 29, 2009 at 02:47 AM
Nobody seems to care about the opinions and desires of the victim. She does not want this to go on and to drag her into a public arena is to only rape her all over again.
Posted By: Hvonp (Guest) on September 29, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Is anyone really surprised? Hollywood's warped sensibilities have been exposed for a long time. It's no great shock the same miasma which wrecked Drew Barrymore's childhood would champion Polanski.
Posted By: The Tortoise King (Registered) on September 29, 2009 at 12:18 PM
I'm confused as to how people can justify sentencing someone to do time after they were already given time. The judge seemingly went along with the notion that Polanski's time being evaluated was his punishment, then "changed his mind". I don't think the time he was put away was just punishment at all, but we have to look at this from a legal standpoint.
If you're put in jail for six years for something and then you are released and someone just goes, "Oh, I changed my mind." and wants to lock you up longer...that's improper handling of the situation and they should likely be ignored. Polanski went a step further than ignoring and ran to another country.
Do I agree with Polanski's actions or condone raping a 13 year old? Of course not. This demonizing of opposing views has to end.
There is a rational reason why some people don't think he should serve any time and it's because of the circumstances surrounding the case in the past which show that he DID already serve time and an imbecilic judge may have approved it as his "punishment". If so, that's the judge's fault for being an idiot.
Nobody's wandering around arguing in favor of a rapist. They're arguing in favor of the justice system rather than a barbaric caveman mentality which doesn't follow any legal precedent.
It could easily be argued that Polanski served his time. I don't like it, but it could conceivably be the case. And, because we do have certain legalities and an order to things as a society...we have to stand by those and can't just go, "But I don't think that's fair!" for no apparent reason other than our disgust and want for "vengeance".
Do people really not see that their uncivilized, inconsiderate-of-the-facts-view of things is the one that is genuinely disgusting? Not the view of someone who may point out certain aspects of the case in an attempt to clarify the legal issues who people will then label as "defending a rapist"?
Posted By: Ash (Guest) on September 29, 2009 at 01:03 PM
He never served time for his crime in 1977. Mr. Polanski was initially indicted in 1977 on six felony charges that included rape, sodomy and providing a controlled substance to Ms. Geimer. He eventually pleaded guilty to one count of having sex with a minor but left the country after becoming convinced he would be sent back to jail after having a 42-day psychiatric evaluation in state prison. A 42 day psych eval is not the same as serving time for a crime of this nature. He has purposely avoided traveling to certain countries for fear of being sent back to the USA to face the justice his actions warrent. This isn't about vengence, this about justice. Unlike you or I, he had the means and the where-with-all to leave the country and continue living the life he enjoyed while leaving behind his heinous crime and the destruction of a 13 year old girls youth and innocence. So, Roman Polanski is a rapist and anyone who comes to his defense is "defending a rapist" He never served time, ran from his actions and his punishment and now must face the reality of his actions.
Posted By: jdmpjm (Guest) on September 29, 2009 at 03:54 PM
jdmpjm...you're missing some of the circumstances of the case, such as the suggestion by those running things that his time spent under evaluation count as his time served. Also, claiming he destroyed her youth or innocence or whatever is fairly ridiculous given the behavior she admitted she was already engaged in. Although, of course, her poor judgment doesn't excuse his raping her-so don't think I'm trying to blame her for it as he was clearly at fault.
By no means is it "defending a rapist" to say we should examine the actual circumstances of what went on during the previous legal issues concerning this case. The circumstances in this case are complicated and if the judge agreed to terms which sentenced him under the conditions outlined and then changed those terms, it changes the current issue immensely beyond one merely of, "He should go to jail."
It changes it into questions such as, "What behavior went on here?", "How much time has he served as a part of a given sentence already agreed to (if any)?", "What were the circumstances that led some to believe his time served while being evaluated should have counted as his sentence?" and all sorts of other questions rather than simply one of, "Should he go to jail?" Because the obvious answer to that is, "Yes." But the question is, "How much time has he already served of his sentence (if any) and how much of a sentence is that as defined under law?"
This is the issue raised and some seemingly believe that as a part of the agreement, he shouldn't serve ANY more time...because they feel the agreement outlined that his time served would count. This is an oversimpliciation, of course. And, of course, the obvious "knee-jerk" reaction to allegations of rape is, "Throw him in jail!"...but this case isn't nearly that simple.
Especially given the potential mishandling of certain things, the possibility of illegal activities taken part in by the judge, etc. So while you're right about a lot of it, the conclusion you draw negates potential factors...like if the judge agreed to let that be his sentence, then changed his mind. Which may or may not be the case, but if it is then that was the sentence...and if not, then things should progress from there. But that's why it must be examined. It's not so clear-cut as most are making it out to be.
A trial of some sort seems an inevitability at this rate, given the potential issues raised with the original judge and the possible sentencing...
Posted By: Ash (Guest) on September 29, 2009 at 06:34 PM
Ash, I haven't missed anything here I don't think. The original judge is dead. He sent Roman to prison for a 42 day psych eval, at the end of which further sentencing was to take place. Originally disposed to call the 42 days it, reconsidered sending him back for another 48 days. There was no offical plea drawn up or entered into court records of this so called letting him go after the intial eval period. Much of that was brought about by the film documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. After his 42 eval, Polanski learned of the judges thoughts on sending him back to prison, jumped bail and left the country. He told friends once he arrived in Paris in 1978, that he had dealt with the situation for a year and that was torture enough. Torture enough? I think not. Follow this link to learn more facts.
http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html
If he truly thought the case was mishandled, then go through the proper legal channels and get it resolved. He ran like a guilty fugative rather than face his sentencing.
Posted By: jdmpjm (Guest) on September 29, 2009 at 09:26 PM
If he truly thought the case was mishandled, then go through the proper legal channels and get it resolved. He ran like a guilty fugative rather than face his sentencing.
----------
While I agree with this and your interpretation of the case, I think many commenting (apparently not you, I guess...I apologize for the over-generalizations toward you) negate the issues raised by it completely...and, in doing so, miss some of the "valid points" brought up by those defending Polanski or at least calling for more consideration when looking at the complexities of the case.
I think he deserves (more) jail time, certainly. But that's a matter of my opinion and when I look at it outside of that, the potential issues related to the original plea and all will likely have to be addressed in court - assuming Polanski ends up there. And I believe he has a valid concern with bringing up those issues. Do I think that means he should get away with "time served" - not as a matter of personal opinion and, instead, as a matter of legal view - not at all.
But people just going, "Why are people defending him? Why are people questioning if this is right?" extremely incredulously are often just completely overlooking many of the "valid" legal concerns and relying solely on societal stamps of "what should be done". And I think they need to contemplate the nature of the questions raised by what's gone on ALREADY...when determining what EXACT outcome this should likely have.
Posted By: Ash (Guest) on September 30, 2009 at 12:00 AM
This PERVERT terorized a young girl so I think going "WAR ON TERROR" on him is JUSTIFIED.
Posted By: who cares (Guest) on September 30, 2009 at 12:50 AM
Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
