I'd loved to have actually read what Harold aka Texson said I can only assume was directed at my last comment. I expected him to lose nerve soon, just can't stand the facts. I said my piece. And peace to you all. Including Polanski.

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained foul, abusive or discriminating language.

Don't bother with the transcripts I know them by heart - To fight someone off comes in various shapes and sizes including using your VOICE, right? Right. Polanski was shorter than her, NOT twice her size, but no doubt stronger I’m sure we can agree on. Now, according to her testimony she tried to ‘stop’ him very halfheartedly with a few ‘no’ words and some weak pushing, right? Right. Yet HE never corroborated that, right? Right. I’m sure you’d also agree that even a teen would kick, shout, scream, and do everything possible to fight an attacker off at her own costs not to be raped, right? Right. I repeat, there were no marks on her or him in any form, and, she wasn’t physically incapacitated not to even ONCE try defending herself in SOME form and attack him like a wildcat. Right? Right. So then, why I should believe HER version, rather than HIS, because in fact, the medical findings don’t confirm her as having been ‘raped’ either, let alone brutally. FACT.

Furthermore, why did she not ONCE try to run off, do ANYTHING, stating she was ‘afraid’ of him, yet HE had no such impression, right? Right. And most of all, why did she not ONCE cry for help when Huston interrupted them when they had sex and she could have stormed to the OPEN door, call for her help, do ANYTHING to attract her attention being RIGHT THERE, VOICE her apparent ‘fear’ with Polanski not keeping her from shouting or running or do anything to express any danger? How does it figure, to say she’s afraid, and then doesn’t take the ONE chance to get out of there, with Huston right there able to help her? She puts her underwear back on and rather misses the ONE golden opportunity to escape him, yet she waits for him to return and he has sex with her a second time – how does THAT figure?

Have you EVER thought ONCE of the ONE possibility, that HE told the truth and that it WAS consensual, and SHE had made these few things up of being afraid HE never corroborated, and that they both simply had SEX? He always said it was consensual, and she always had maintained that it wasn’t ‘forcible rape’. But I guess that wouldn’t fit into your sense of morality that they simply slept with each other and he had anal intercourse not to impregnate her, the probation officer in fact called a very solicitous act. HE DID NOT RAPE HER.

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained foul, abusive or discriminating language.

@Harold aka Texson - He had anal intercourse with her, he didn't 'rape' her, nor was she under the influence of alcohol and drugs she took herself btw, beyond the level not to be able to move or fight him had she wanted. The medical records clearly state that she showed no genital traumas consistent with 'forced rape'. There was no scratch on her. There was no fight, nothing. And she certainly wasn’t unconscious either. If you choose to ignore official documentation to these facts, be my guest and believe what you believe. Fact remains, he didn't injure her in any form. But of course, if you stumble over the term 'anal sex' because you don't like/accept/defend etc. anal sex, that's your prerogative. Maybe you should read the court transcripts to know better what was said and found. Some crucial points of her testimony are inconsistent with the physical findings to accredit 'rape'. Besides, she said often enough herself it wasn't rape - But of course, you've been there to know better than she does. Go on to believe what you want.

@Mashal - No person in their "right" mind believes that 45 days in a psych ward is adequate punishment for a man who anally rapes a 13 year old girl under the influence of Alcohol and drugs. I do not know one of Polanski defenders who would be defending him if it were their Daughter he did the same thing to. I believe the Judge would have been derelict in his duties had he let such an unfair plea deal go forward.

'Wicked vile crime'? Let me enlighten you. First of all, Polanski did not flee before 'sentencing', (wait for it) he had pleaded guilty to the statutory rape count after a plea bargain was struck and in fact had done his time. They never brought this to trial to spare the parties any proceedings, and several other counts would have been thrown out at the official findings as being incorrect.

Like the count of furnishing a minor with drugs, since Polanski had found the Quaaludes in Nicholson's house they had the photoshoot and not brought them along. She took a piece without him asking or even offering it, nor forced her to take it in any form to both testimonies. The count for having drugged a child with intent was therefore also incorrect, because she was legally a prepubescent, not a 'child' by law.

Polanski had been sentenced and served half of his time before he was released early on the recommendation of impartial officials to be of no threat to anyone, and as proven, never was, and that would have been it. I was there, being in my fifties.

But THEN the prejudiced judge changed his mind on public pressure (not knowing the finer details just like today) and wanted to lock him up for much longer and then deport him to save his reputation, which wasn't his call either way. THAT is when Polanski fled the US before the ‘additional’ sentencing was heard, and then BOTH parties' attorney had the judge officially removed for this being illegal misconduct and Rittenband was discredited. That's all documented many still don’t know of or even want to acknowledge.

Since he however had sentenced Polanski (again) in absentia right before his removal after Polanski had fled their jurisdiction, that's where the arrest warrant originates from, and he had often enough appealed against it since it wasn't the judge’s right to renege on their plea agreement and had no legal justification to sentence him again.

His recent arrest might be 'valid' since no one had ever contested it then, but not 'sound' in light of the judges deliberate misconduct, and even the plaintiff’s attorney said, he’d fled the same.

That’s why Polanski had appealed repeatedly the case be dropped.
Just like his so called victim, who time and time again said it wasn’t rape and that he wasn’t forceful at all, but the public simply loves to ignore that despite hearing it. She showed more compassion and sense than all that vindictive lynch mob out there knowing zilch about them both or this case, happily maintaining that he ‘drugged’ and violently raped a ‘child’ when official findings never confirmed that.

Medical evidence is clear on that he never forced himself on her in any form and she showed no physical trauma. He had vaginal and anal intercourse not to impregnate her, and NOT orally as so many love to state too. He performed cunnilingus on her, but he never penetrated her orally too many state just to make is as lurid as possible, or how he had brutalised her when she never confirmed any of that. She didn’t fight him off, yet was never declared incapacitated not to be able to do so. She stated that she said no, yet he said she was responsive. That’s down to matters of their individual opinions at that time, based on dissimilar perceptions, their individual emotional and physical states, and WE cannot judge them today in any form, and was the only account that didn’t match.

She later stated that is was a bit gross what he did, since many suspected she never had anal intercourse before. But it’s not for you to call him a pervert for having anal sex, many do it and then it’s not called sodomy but in his case. That‘s all just double standards and a matter of personal preference.

But no, he’s a rich ‘celeb’ that needs to be made a terrible example of again, while others did and do commit atrocities as we speak and never face/d the music. Get your priorities right. The man never was any threat to anyone and no one ever came forward with any evidenced to the contrary. The ill-informed and twisting public turned it into a bloody circus of horrors fuelled by incorrect media fodder, and the blood lusty lynch mob loves to ignore these facts still today. That’s why so many stand behind him, even Geimer, publicly calling for an end of this disgraceful witch hunt.

As for the statutory rape law, it makes a clear distinction that it is not real rape by legal definition, since a minor can still say yes I want to have sex, but is not ‘allowed’ to ‘do’ so. Many were condemned despite having consensual sex, and many of course were not. The fact that the law thinks they have to protect children and teenagers, (but let adults ‘control’ themselves when they’re no more able than youngsters) makes therefore no allowance however that they still would do what they want, able to or not, and were/are much more knowledgeable in many areas like sex or drugs and alcohol etc., than most parents/adults want them to be. Many are much more mature than the law allows them to be, while others are not, or never will be even as ‘adults’. It’s not really a universally applicable law by practicality, common sense and individual circumstances, since youngsters should have their say at any age, rather than laws or adults ‘only’.

In Polanski’s case, the girl’s boyfriend who was seventeen then was not charged, despite the fact that, if the adult is less than three years older than the minor, no crime of unlawful sex has been committed. These are so called 'Romeo and Juliet' laws, despite the boyfriend actually having been four years older than she was at that time. Curious in many eyes that no one had held him responsible even if both had engaged in consensual sex.

Polanski should get his hearing and the US judicial system put on trial, nothing else. This entire case was a travesty of justice even the girl then realised, and the unbelievable public vindictiveness he was exposed to ever since Tate was butchered after his traumatic childhood already and again today, is a very sad and dangerous example of how hypocrites love to destroy others just because they’re famous having prevailed ordeals and these false accusations. He has suffered enough, let him be.

If YOU however cannot share that graceful sentiment, maybe you should think twice before calling for the noose by understanding both parties wanting to pull together to end this, YOU have no right to deny them, or again all you show is the same shameful ignorance, allowing scandalous political manipulations play pawn with lives, fuelling detrimental public hatred we have enough of in this indeed so corrupt world already.

If you seriously can say to be of no sin, than cast that first stone and just burn his films why don't you, like in the good old book and art burning days of the Third Reich he barely had escaped. There are too many too quick to judge and too slow to walk in the other’s shoes not even being half his age, and it’s about high time to stop the public hangings and blood lust from ignorant and self-righteous moralists.

Ms Geimer has that gracious empathy and vital understanding YOU all desperately need to acquire, and she stated often enough that she would like Polanski freed and forgiven. I personally wish them both the best - and so should you.

To DES

The BTK Killer is the BTK Killer
and Polanski is Polanski.
And if you've seen the documentary
"WANTED AND DESIRED ROMAN POLANSKI"
then you've seen what a FORCE
that trial was.
Everybody in the right mind would
have escaped.
You don't have to be a coward or
"less than a man" to walk away
for that kind of "justice".
Are you a religious person ?
People say that everybody who
protects Roman Polanski must be a
hypocryt ?
GOD protects Roman Polanski.
Is GOD a hypocryt ?
I Don't think so.
I Think GOD is the only decent
man there is.
And what can people say about
that ?
I wonder what kind of bullshit
people will answer to this story.
PS : Roman can only get TWO YEARS
in jail , and i doubt if that is
going to happen.
Most people don't remember in
perfect detail what happened 32
years ago and in the courtroom
ONLY THE PROVEN FACTS COUNT.
So , what kind of case can there
be ?
It's a BIG but VERY BAD JOKE !
As usual...

To Don Heckers,

If someone is married and has kids who love them they deserve a different sort of justices? If memory serves me correct the BTK killer fits your criteria for a light or non sentence. Polanski raped and sodomized a child, became a fugitive because he wasn't enough of a man to face the consequences, and so far no one can prove he ever paid the civil suit he agreed to and you want him to walk away?

What Polanski plead to and what he is guilty of are two different things. I mean if you read Samantha Geimers Grand Jury Testimony it is sad and wrenching. This pervert is guilty of out right full on FORCIBLE rape of a child! I mean if I were to slip a 40 year old Woman a Roofie and have Sex with Her I go to jail. This perv does it to a 13 year old and gets a 30+ year European Vacation. Go figure. I say extradite him and put him in a Cell with Bubba or Leroy. Then lets see how he likes being on the receiving end of what he did to that 13e year old over her protests for him to STOP.

Polanski met the conditions for his plea-bargained release and it would have been over except for a corrupt U.S. judge, as acknowledged by both the defense and prosecution. That Polanski resisted the double jeopardy of a grandstanding judge who could have spun out his limbo in jail for as long as he chose, was a reasonable response that a sane California should forgive.

California not only has subjected Polanski to a thirty-year vendetta but waived its own rules in allowing the victim to sue for money long after her right to do so (with or without Polanski's presence) had passed.

The only entity or individual that has any reason to be punished is the district attorney's office itself for wasting tax money, despite clear evidence that the victim doesn't want it and the self-described guilty party has reformed his behavior.

It's about time he has to return to the U.S. to face the music. He was allowed to run free all over the world for 30 years and the disgusting part is that he was making movies and receiving awards for them! As for the justice system in my country, I agree that there is room for improvement, like in every country in the world. Yet when a pervert like this can be caught, no matter how long after the crime (remember, he admitted his guilt) he should get his just rewards in prison.

To Stan Roe.

Everybody's got the right to
their own opinion.
So do i , and i can't agree with
you.
You said something about AGE that
i didn't really understand.
How old do you think i am ?
I'm 47 , is this the age you
expected me to be or did you think
i was younger or older ?
Part of me wants Roman Polanski
not to have a hard time because
of his cruel past , and part of me
thinks about Sharon Tate (Roman's
murdered wife).
I've said that i don't like the
things he's done , and i really
mean that , but he's got a wife
since august 1989 and two kids
(11 and 16 years old).
THEY LOVE HIM DEARLY AND WANT HIM
BACK HOME.
Is that so hard to understand ?
They are being punished although
they didn't commit any crime.
That's not justice eather.
So you see , Mr.Roe , I KNOW BY
DETAIL WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
My letter to you is not written
in anger (i think you can see
that i treat you with respect).
I'd like to from you again , if
that's possible.
Greetings from Don Heckers from
The Netherlands.

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained foul, abusive or discriminating language.

Duh, of course he should. He admitted to sleeping with a 13 year old, and ran away from the prison sentence.

To Dan Heckers: All you say is true except for Roman Polenski not having to face the music. If you can show me any Justice System in the World that is better than the American Justice System please let us all know. As I often tell my grandchildren, nothing in this world is perfect. As soon as you are you are their age maybe you will understand that.

No way.

Let the American Justice depart-
ment do real important things
first.
They have bigger fish to fry.
Serialkillers on the loose , pimps
junkies and Osama Bin Laden.
And there are MANY , MANY MORE.
And after they have them all
behind bars , then they can think
about the Polanski case.
(Maybe over 25 years)
In the USA people say that it's
a huge scandal that Polanski tries
to buy his way out.
Hasn't Michael Jackson done the
exact same thing over and over ?
YES , he damn sure has.
And everybody keeps dancing to
his music.
That's not fair.
Not fair at all.
As long as Roman polanski isn't
given the same treatment as the
king of pop , i can't listen to
Michael Jackson's music.
It hurts me too much.
I'am allowed to be a big fan of
Roman Polanski's work , and i am
very devoted to his work.
Believe me , I DON'T LIKE WHAT
HE DID IN 1977 , but he's not
the only one in Hollywood.
He's the only one who (unfortuna-
tely for himself) got arrested.
But there are many more.
And nobody cares about that.
I Know that Roman Polanski can
get no more than 2 years in jail
but that's 2 years too long.
Do you really believe that OJ
SIMPSON didn't kill his wife ?
Let's asume for a minute that he
didn't do-it.
Whoever did do-it is walking free
somewhere in America.
You call that justice ?
I Don't.
And i have NO FAITH in American
Justice because a couple of months
ago they've realed a man who'd
spent 23 years in jail AND HE WAS
INNOCENT.
So give me ONE GOOD REASON why i
should trust the American law ?

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
He should face a stricter prosecution for he is Polanski and not a "Tom Dick and Harry"

He admits to have committed a wicked vile crime of course he should be extradited.