ROMAN POLANSKI, jail the mongrel

I saw on the 6.30 WIN news tonight that Roman Polanski believes all charges against him should be dropped as "no one was hurt, and he just has a liking for young girls" ,he's bloody lucky i'm not involved in his case, remember this bast--d raped a 13 year old girl ,admitted it and then bolted to a non-extradition country at the first oppurtunity.Hope the paedophile gets life.

Yeah, Bloke.....I am sort of with you on this. But:

I want to hear more before I join a firing squad.

More what? He's admitted it; he just doesn't think there was anything wrong with it.
I doubt he'll serve much of a sentence because the victim wants the matter laid to rest and he'll use his age and how long ago it happened as an excuse for a suspended sentence.

Some excerpts from articles, to better understand the case,

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009...l-incident.html

If we are so concerned for the victim, here is what she says about it now,

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/28/zurich...sted/index.html

Here is more,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09...?section=justin

Points I would like to make ...

He did not think there was "nothing wrong" with what he did, and he pleaded guilty in court.
He later settled out of court in a civil suit with the victim.

He was hardly a "common pedophile" who stalked young girls, in the sense that we understand what a pedophile is; he pleaded guilty at the time, and you can read the rest from the excerpts above.

They should drop it, enough is enough.

Go ahead, you can stomp me now for what I believe where this case is concerned ...

I wouldn't stomp anyone ...ever I hope.

my thoughts?

I think the victim's wishes should be respected. If she doesn't wish this case pursued, then it should be dropped. It may do HER more harm than good to have this all brought up again.

I do think he is a pedophile..his money and his fame make it easy for him so he does not have to stalk young girls.


I have a 13 year old daughter. I can't imagine her terror at being plied with alcohol drugs and then pleading with her attacker. I think this is unforgivable.

Hi Julia ...

I definitely agree with you, that since the victim, who is now a grown woman, wants the case dropped, it should be dropped, annulled ...

But I wouldn't call him a pedophile, I believe this was a party scene, and that it was one time only, at Jack Nicholson's house, and that everybody was drunk and stoned, and that Polanski forced unlawful sex on a minor, he raped her.

He has been married three times, to adult women, Barbara Lass (1959-1962), Sharon Tate (1968-1969), and Emmanuelle Seigner (1989-present).

He didn't "stalk" little girls, he partied and got stoned in the years after Sharon's murder by the Manson family, and that one time at a photo shoot and party he made a terrible mistake.

What he did was wrong, and of course he should have been punished at the time, but then he did settle with the victim Samantha later in a civil case, and as we know, she has long since forgiven him.

For the USA to pursue this case all these 30 years after the fact is absurd, the time for that was long ago, he is 76 years old now ...

Apart from the fact that he drugged and raped a child, two things worry me about all this.

First is the argument that he's somehow entitled because he's such a wonderful, talented, creative man.

I don't agree that anyone is important enough to be entitled to rape women - that's the same attitude from our footballers, and a whole lot of other groups of males - that they're so much more important than the victims, and that they have a right to take what they want from any woman, any age, willing or not. I thought laws are supposed to apply to everyone, not just the ones who aren't so wonderfully special. Nobody is entitled.

The second problem I have with it is the call to drop it because the victim wants it dropped.

I know that the case could distress her for a short time, and I feel sorry for that. If the bastard hadn't run it'd all be long over. But allowing a victim of crime to stop a case is a hugely dangerous precedent. How easy would it be for criminals to bribe, threaten or force victims to stop cases? A victim's statement might affect sentencing, but not the fact that a crime was committed.

Besides, he's a creep. He made a deal and ran out on it, he thinks that he's too important to have to pay for what he did. And he wants the case dropped so he can go to the US and make bigger money than he does now. Why should he get rewarded for his crimes?

You took the words out of my mouth, Gwynne.
Whether you like it or not, Nan, he is a paedophile; he drugged and raped a child. And she wasn't his only victim. He also had an affair with 15 year old Natassja Kinski. During the broadcast that Justa_Bloke is referring to he said words along the lines of
"Hey, there's nothing wrong with what I did. I like them young."
Dropping the charges against him will send out the message it's not what you do, it's who you are and how long you can flee from justice that counts.

I didn't see that broadcast, and it has been so many years that I was unsure of the particulars of the case until I looked up the info today.

It's true that what he did was sleezy, wrong, and against the law, and yes I did hear about the Kinski girl as well.

It's just that I think of pedophiles as almost a different species of human, they have a sickness and a compulsion which seems to have nothing to do with money, they are usually anonymous and low key, not wanting to bring attention to themselves, and they have a kind of scary mental illness that we interpret as pure evil.

I don't think of Polanski that way, he was a fithy rich party guy, taking advantage of females with the drugs and sex, and back in those days making the most of the free-for-all "hippie" scene of the sixties and seventies.

He may have been a sleeze underneath all that talent, maybe he still is even though he's married, but he's not mentally ill.
I think true pedophiles are criminally insane, creepy as hell, and scary as alien lifeforms.

Well I don't know how to explain it better than that, but that's my take on it.

I'm sorry to have to disagree, saying I believe that since the victim wants Polanski cleared and the case dropped, then it should be.
Um, I shouldn't have said anything, knew I'd get stomped ...

he's a maggot.....no different to ferguson... just a talented maggot

Stick to yer guns, Nan. I agree with you entirely. Absurd, Bloke, to compare him with Ferguson, who is a serial criminal. Polanski seems to have made a mistake, once. No pattern, no continuity like Ferguson.

True, but should still be punished according to the law, not given a finger wag and told not to do it again.
If that is done then it sets a precidence for others that may have commited the same 20, 30, 40 yrs ago, where they can say, Ha, I can get away with it, the laws said so.

There is no 'made a mistake, once' on this issue aussie...

and you know what i'm going to say...
........if it was your daughter mate...
you just say 'oh well, he only did it once...and it was long ago'

he's a tamperer that got caught out...for that one case at least....with his money and power, how many others were there that no-one knows about but the victims?

This is not an accusation, just my personal opinion...in case i get sued by someone..

Love this crap

HE with her consent has made her in to a Hooker!

what you say?

did he not pay her and with her consent she forgave him.

Give me a break!.

"Nann" I thought in your country sex with a minor is stat. Rape could be wrong?

Anyone who forces himself onto a woman weather it be husband,father,neighbor,friend or just a average every day shit head needs to be treated as VERMIN.

When No is used it means NO NO

Unless you are a SA supreme court Judge, or retired law manipulator "bullshit maker"

Of course the above is only my PERSONAL opinion and anyone who agrees with the idea he should be forgiven needs to look at his or her morals or lack of?

"Once again this is only my personal opinion"

Noooooo Cossy, it's not that I don't think what he did back in the seventies was wrong!
It was wrong, immoral and illegal, it was statutory rape.

But with all the years that have passed and everything that has happened, to press the case at this point would cause more harm to the victim and her family, and she wants it dropped.
He has been married to a frenchwoman for 20 years and they have children, and it would most likely cause great distress for them too.

The other thing I'm saying is that I don't think of him as a serial pedophile.
He committed a crime, did do a short time in prison for it, and then left the country illegally for fear of a corrupt judge, but he's not a chronic stalker and not "criminally insane" the way pedos are, the way somebody like that scumbag Ferguson is.

Polanski forced sex on a minor that one time that we know about, but whatever they do to him now is out of our hands, we shall have to see what happens ...

Sorry nan ,really have to disagree with you on this one.It was not one time only ,he corrupted the judge so he could flee over seas,and based on your theory that it happened ears ago,does that not also mean all these catholic priests currently being convicted around the world,they also paid hush money[i mean compensation] so should they not be charged because it happened long ago.Seems another case of i'm rich and famous so i should get away with it.

Um, what do you mean that "he corrupted the judge"?

From what I've understood of the case, it was the judge who was corrupt and was about go back on the deal they made when he confessed to "unlawful sex with a minor."

In the US legal system judges, prosecutors and accused make deals, and sentencing is adjusted according to certain decisons and proceedings.

The judge and the prosecutor were about to go back on the deal they had made previously, suddenly planning to to slap him with sodomy and several other charges, which might have amounted to life in prison, or so. That's when he got on a plane to France and never came back.

Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, and the Polanski case has nothing to do with me, and it isn't my fault. Some of you are acting like I have "loose" morals, even to consider that the case should be dropped.

And this has nothing to do with Catholic priests abusing little boys, either. The Catholic Church needs to do something about that, again I am not a lawyer, and it isn't my place to judge others.

I'm saying that because the victim wants the case dropped, they should drop it.

It's not my business, and I only posted my opinion in this thread.
But I see crime according to the particular case, I don't lump them all in together, every case is different and needs to be treated accordingly ...

There is a woman in her 40's who is married with kids of her own, she is no longer a child, and it is her wish the matter be dropped.
As long as he is not a risk to other children, and I would want to take a good look at his past, to make as sure as possible this was the case, which I haven't done, I believe the woman's wishes should be respected.
She deals with what happened her own way, It is her pain, Making her relive it, would be victimizing her all over again.
I would do whatever she wanted, and let her get on with her life.
The only thing that would make my view differ is if he was a threat to children today.

Yes Auds, and thank you ...

He has been married to the same woman in France for 20 years now, and they have a stable family life and children. It is very doubtful that he is a threat to children in any way.

He knows he made a terrible mistake that time 30 years ago. I imagine that he has felt sick about what he did every day of his life, deep inside.

As I said, the case is none of my business, but my non-professional and un-informed opinion is exactly as you say, that at this point the wishes of the victim are the most important.

One other thing, the original judge who made the plea deal with Polanski has died, and that changes the particulars of the case as it stands now. I'm anxious to see what they are going to do about it ...

The only reason he felt sick about what he did - if he regretted it at all - is that he wasn't able to work in the US and make more money than he has. That's been discussed for years when this case comes up, the fact that the poor man wasn't able to get the big bucks.

I haven't seen anything from him now or over the last few decades that expresses any real regret or remorse for his actions, except as a complaint that it caused him some inconvenience.

He's on record saying that he likes young girls. What we do know about him is that he now has the money and status to get access to them whenever he likes - and nobody would be naive enough to deny that girls are freely available in the movie industry. His problems over the drugging and rape of that child taught him to be more careful, that's all.

If he was truly sorry he'd have dealt with this problem decades ago, not run out on the deal he made.

Have you been following Polanski - the movie director, the celebrity, the rapist, the man himself - that closely for all these years, that you could possibly determine what he really feels inside?

Or have you concluded the way things are from some media reports, news, documentaries, you have read or seen here and there for the past thirty years ...

How do you know what he really felt, how do you know what his life has been like? He is married with children! He's not a pedo!

You might think I am defending a rapist and a criminal, simply because he's famous and talented.

But what I am pointing out is the right to defend a point of view that might not be the most popular view, the view that there is obviously more to a case like this than simply dismissing the man as a mongrel, a disgusting pedophile, and saying throw the book at him, give him life, lock him up and throw away the key and let him rot and die in prison.

I try to look at crime according to the particular case, and the facts and circumstances of that case ...

(don't worry Aussie, sticking to my guns here)

Nan, I'm not sure we define pedophile in the same way.

A pedophile is someone who derives sexual satisfaction from children.

A pedophile can be straight or gay, old or young, mostly male but some are female. He can be a dirty old man in a grubby raincoat or well-groomed and successful. Many of them are married with families - look at how many children are abused by fathers, stepfathers and grandfathers.

Being married, successful, presenting a nice face to the world - none of that means the person isn't a pedophile. Many of them are the people you'd least suspect - outwardly respectable, caring and even important members of their communities. They are incredibly good at presenting that respectable face, and at manipulating the feelings of those around them.

I've done plenty of 'spot the pedophile' courses over the last few decades (although mostly from the 'spot the victim' perspective). Trust me, you can't just look at someone and know. Yes, they definitely have psychological defects and problems, but in many cases it's basically an urge to have power and control over someone, and a total selfishness that places their need for gratification over the feelings of anyone else.

Roman Polanski likes young girls. He's said so. He drugged, raped, sodomised and photographed a young girl. And he knew her age, he admitted that. He also sees nothing wrong with liking them young - another feature of many pedophiles, who don't think of the point of view of the victim, just the way that victim can be used to gratify their own desires. He's in an industry that serves young girls up on a platter - another feature of pedophiles is that they drift towards jobs that give them access to children. A movie producer is the perfect job for someone who wants a steady supply of eager young girls.

I've seen stories about him for years, every now and then this whole discussion would bob up, often someone in the movie industry expressing outrage that poor Roman couldn't work in the US all because of some pesky little legal problem. Or as a footnote whenever someone in the Manson family applied for parole or died. I didn't think they'd ever get him.

And I still don't think that he's entitled, or should be excused. What he did was vile. And he's got no remorse, he can't see that he did anything wrong.

Okay Gwynne, I see what you mean, looking at it your way ...

I thought pedophiles were sleezy old men, slimy and disgusting, probably naked under their raincoats, with crazy watery rolling eyeballs and a psychotic staring expression on their faces.
I thought pedos were like those scumbags Ferguson, Garrido who kidnapped Jaycee Dugard, or Couey who recently died in prison in America.
Now you can look into their faces and tell they are psychos ...

That has been my perception of pedos, so to me it's unthinkable that Polanski could be one of those.
Surely it was that he made a mistake just that one time, he got stoned and raped a girl thirty years ago, and he's sorry and has never done it again.

I could be wrong. God knows what he has been doing over the years. God knows what the public doesn't know about. God knows the victims who have never pressed charges.

In that case, I don't know what to think about him.
He looks like an arrogant son of a bee, but not a psycho, so I really don't know what he is, and I don't know what the legal system should do about him now ...

The slimy ones are the ones who get caught easier. The more successful ones look totally respectable and get away with it for longer.

Sadly, there's no way to identify them on sight - and oh how I wish there was.

What constantly outrages and mystifies me is why the courts go so lightly on them. Why are they ever let out to do it again?

That's got to be one of the scariest things I've ever heard, Nan. It's because of naive ideas like that that so many of the mongrels have got away with hurting kids for so long.

Btw.. that news clip justa_bloke's original post referred to didn't look like it was filmed all that long ago and the words that he couldn't see anything wrong with having sex with very young girls came out of his mouth. They weren't misquoted by a reporter or anything like that.

nannham Posted on Oct 3 2009, 01:49 AM

They are judges, Lawyers, Priests, Parents, politicians,could be the bloke next door?

What we need to do is come down hard and throw away the key, If the goody two shoes complain lock them up with them, so they can help rehabilitate them.

As parents we are charged with their care and well being, Because he is well known and well off he want's us to forget what he did, He paid her off now he want's a free pass, give him one when HELL freezes over,that in my opinion is fair.

Well, I am not against changing my mind about something when I can see that I've been wrong.
The way you've explained it changes my ideas about pedophilia drastically ...

The US should now treat him as they would anyone else, he ran out on his sentencing, that will probably mean extra charges, and they should proceed as they would for any sex offender, rich and famous doesn't matter either ...

I just feel sorry for the victim Samantha, and also his wife and family in France ...

FRANCE WELCOME POLANSKI..
They say...ohhhhhhhh he's a wonderful man..so talented...and it was just a little mistake long ago...

like ok. THEN lets give ferguson the key to the city and celebrate him...he just made a little mistake too...didn't he?..at least this maggot went to prison over it and has been hounded since...

but he's not a famous movie maker is he?? he's just a nobody who likes to have sex with young people..

This really does show the attitude of those in the movie world - they feel that somehow they're entitled, that they're above everyone else.