This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
There needs to be a serious discussion as to the intended scope of this article. At the moment, it would more properly be titled something along the lines of Public response to the 2009 arrest of Roman Polanski. At the moment it's definitely not focused on the topic of the arrest, but rather the reaction. Furthermore, this should not become a coatrack of everybody's commentary who decided to comment on the issue. That would perhaps be more suitable for a Wikiquote page (though it may be the first of its kind, it would fit the mandate of that project better than this project). Does anyone have a clear idea as to how this article could be focused and what criteria and organizational paradigm we should apply to the "Reaction" section?
It seems problematic to me that an article ostensibly about his arrest never actually mentions why he was arrested. cmadler ( talk) 18:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
"Arrest of Roman Polanski" is ambiguous. Polanski has been arrested more than once (his original 1977 arrest and the 2009 arrest). How about "2009 arrest of Roman Polanski"? Urban XII ( talk) 23:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was: not moved. Station1 ( talk) 01:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
2009 arrest of Roman Polanski → Response to the 2009 arrest of Roman Polanski — As mentioned by several editors, the current title is ambiguous. I don't think this is controversial but it also needs to be updated at Roman Polanski which is locked. Abby Kelleyite ( talk) 17:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an attempt at an analysis of a new story. It is not encyclopedic. I am not prepared to nominate it for speedy deletion but some one should do so. JimCubb ( talk) 00:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Politicians face backlash over Polanski http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7ad75dca-ae06-11de-87e7-00144feabdc0.html?catid=75&SID=google
After outcry, France softens tone on Polanski case http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/entertainment/6129813/after-outcry-france-softens-tone-on-polanski-case/
The Polanski Case: A Gallic Shrug http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/weekinreview/04kimmelman.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&hpw
The first two seem mostly to "boil down" the change in position within the named governements, but the last one is of particular interest, as it describes "A case of morals" (une affaire de moeurs), which was a phrase from the petition, as being the french equivalent of "yada yada". WookMuff ( talk) 03:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to suggest that some of the above contretemps would be avoided if this article were about the entirety of the case from the 1970s forward. Just talking about an arrest for a crime for which there is no article seems to turn BLP a bit on its head, and it does make it seem to be all about the current-day media flap and thus lean toward murky analysis and reaction rather than encyclopedic events. When I was able to edit regularly I often saw this sort of disagreement about an article a symptom of a mistake in scope or framing. -- Dhartung | Talk 09:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is it needed in the first line to repeat polanski's name three times? Off2riorob ( talk) 16:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Arrest is also repeated 5 times in the opening small para. Why the word repetition? The opening para of the lede lede is repetitive and in need of a small rewite. Any comments? Off2riorob ( talk) 17:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Quite notable reaction from NPR's Cokie Roberts, “Roman Polanski is a criminal. You know, he drugged and raped and sodomized a child. And then was a fugitive from justice. As far as I’m concerned, just take him out back and shoot him.” [1] [2] [3] link title [4] [5]..._ 99.142.8.221 ( talk) 02:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The current structure looks like this:
His conviction is not "allegations", and these sections should hence not be sub-sections under "Sexual abuse allegations". Also, it's not meaningful to have "Arrest in Zürich" as a level 3 (sub) section under "Sexual abuse allegations", and then have a new level 2 section called "Reactions to the arrest". The latter should be a sub-section under "Arrest in Zürich" to make sense. Urban XII ( talk) 18:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Now changed to:
Urban XII ( talk) 18:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
SOURCE LINK: "How a girl's stark words got lost in the Polanski spectacle"
Their is a pretty good article from the Los Angeles times, October 25 I think, 2009, that really gives alot of info that I didnt know. For example how the victim went on television I think around 1997 and said "it wasn't rape then" and how Polanski "wasn't forceful". It also tells how someone (im not sure who) told Polanksi if he didn't agree to leave the country he might have long jail. And so Polanksi left and a newspaper said Polanksi Fleed. The article isn't one sided it seems like. It also makes it seem like Polanksi gave the girl alochol and a pill. And it makes you think tha tmaybe he did commit a crime and / or crimes. It has a lot of info. And the writer doesnt seem baist in implying hes guilty or not guilty. Here is the link and I was thinking of putting some info in here and maybe I will, but maybe someone else might want to put some info from this article in this Wikipedia article then? 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 22:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
MY COMMENT This is not news analysis, but something else. ("Creative journalism" was another nomenclature phrase—consider "Black Hawk Down" in initial newspaper incarnation). It is not op-ed, but it was written with a POV (makes a case). Perhaps further comments later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I can read the second half of the transcription of Samantha Gailey's grand jury testimony? I found the first half here, but the second half unfortunately doesn't lead to the right pages!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andj2134saeo23412 ( talk • contribs) 00:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The Smoking Gun link says it was unsealed by by L.A. Superior Court Judge David Wesley. This article, although it is from People magazine, says that the testimony was unsealed around January 2003. http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,625636,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.145.26 ( talk) 07:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, Well, if the Smoking Gun states it, it must be true. I wouldn't risk a lawsuit repeating that source. What about the LA Times and the Grand Jury Testimony? There is a difference is releasing the DECISION of the Grand Jury and the actual Grand Jury testimony. Be careful. Mugginsx ( talk) 09:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Just an observation: It seems to me that this kind of information would be better served on a Court TV-type Blog instead of Wiki. Mugginsx ( talk) 17:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I am with Off2riorob on this, WHY ALL THE REPETITION? It seems to me that the original editiors need to put their heads together and write ONE synopsis of the case. The two sections are almost identical anyway. Mugginsx ( talk) 09:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Different IP addresses keep trying to delete something valid to the article, and add in something totally unrelated. [7] The results of the rape kit are not relevant, because he admitted to having sex with her, in court, in interviews, and in his biography. So whether any semen got on the panties isn't relevant, although I do recall in the documentary they mentioning that there was. And stating that since he fled before sentencing that they could still charge him with all 6 original charges, this complete with credible references, is quite relevant to the man's situation. Comments? Agree, disagree? Dream Focus 10:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Response 4 - (as long as it gets I’m afraid, concerning the Cooley interview/link for now). Again, Geimer’s lawyer himself said in 2003 in an interview with Larry King, the statute has long run out on the other five counts once he pled, thus the plea is as IS. Only a judge can withdraw it or Polanski requesting to do so – his fugitive status has zero bearing on it. The plea stands under Californian law to this day. Cooley had no clues about the case to begin with I’m sure we can agree on – he also said last year his plea is airtight, when it wasn’t – he thought Polanski pleaded to 50 yrs, when he didn't. No one told Polanski it could entail that much, which is legally unethical, no one asked for it but be released on probation, and he pled to max 20 signed and sealed. Cooley based his ‘back on the table’ assumption on the plea he therefore thinks himself still stands, except, it wasn’t correctly submitted then for the 20/50 yr discrepancy. Which on the other hand does not nullify it either, it only proves one of the many ‘failures’ of the law ‘enforced’ on Polanski.
To quote; Rittenband refused to allow Polanski to withdraw his plea and go to trial in the first place. He gave the state/attorneys what they had bargained for: the certainty of conviction while avoiding a costly trial, yet the judge did not give the defendant what he was entitled to if he rejected the probation recommendation: the right to withdraw the plea and go to trial. Hence, plea stands. Had Polanski known it could entail 50 yrs he sure as hell had not entered the plea but asked for a trial, thinking himself innocent of the five [other] counts. This was and is illegal in ‘civilised’ jurisdictions to this day to force on any defendant, and if one were to put themselves in Polanski’s shoes at this juncture, the decision to flee the jurisdiction, becomes understandable because of the clear message that the judge was sending: “I simply ignore the attorney’s/official’s recommendations to save my public face.” He was openly discussing the case, which his illegal, and he openly made his racist stand clear and to exploit Polanski’s status as best he could. And did. Illegal I'm sure.
Under Californian law, a plea may be withdrawn at any time BEFORE judgment, there is no formal judgment until sentencing then and now. Polanski has NOT been sentenced, he is a non-sentenced fugitive, nothing else. Had Polanski gone to jail against request, his attorney could have challenged the judge’s misconduct on appeal, but instead Rittenband goes, I'm not going to give you [further] probation (though he was on probation for ten months already and technically he still is) but a jail sentence (no one wanted) rendering you unable to withdraw your plea bargain, and instead sit in a cell needing to appeal the [uncalled] sentence, and this time not in single confinement for his safety. Guilty pleas have to get approval from a judge to be withdrawn. None has done so.
His plea was recorded after he came and went to and from the US (while filming abroad) before he had to go to Chino and Polanski had demonstrated himself more than willing to submit to final justice, make compensation, returned from overseas expressly to accept his sentence, and later gave an agreed-upon settlement. The judge blackmailed him with either going back to sit out the 48 days on self-deportation, which is unlawful to enforce on a defendant, or send him down for good, which is even more unlawful to corner him. These observations clearly demonstrate the illegalities Polanski was facing then: should he trust a legal system to correct a string of gross injustice that the very same system had just committed by going to jail, hoping that an appeal will resolve them or his status, a process that might take years,(which was Rittenband's idea, instead of maybe saying I want him back inside for a 'second evaluation' to make sure, the 48 days) or should he flee the corrupt/ed system’s jurisdiction. Even the prosecutor said that he would have fled.
For this and the fact that Polanski could not appeal against the evaluation forced on him through Wells using it as punishment already, which was also unlawful, after earlier reports had already given Polanski a clean bill of [mental] health and not to give him jail time, was the reason Rittenband was eventually removed by both attorneys before he wanted to sentence Polanski, two weeks after he was gone. Too late to help the defendant with a fairer judge. Ergo, the plea stands as is, and Cooley is twice wrong. Ask any lawyer to tell you his plea is as is, and only on withdrawal are all six counts back on the table to be retried. But she for one doesn’t want that since she cannot refuse to testify this time, and after her plenty inconsistent ‘interpretations’ of events over the years and contradicting evidence already then, to an outright support of his, any proper trial would soon find it not quite as clean cut as many want it and he could well exonerate himself – bar on the count to which he pled.
He doesn’t want a retrial, because he foremost doesn’t trust the US legal system not to railroad him again, end on remand in danger of attacks, running out of money, advanced age, already corrupted records, or of course biased jurors, and therefore both tried to have the case dismissed several times now. And so far no judge has withdrawn the plea either, not only to keep the mess covered up that was exposed finally, but at the great likelihood of finding Polanski innocent of the five counts with an unbiased jury. The plea then was already struck on the mother’s wishes not mainly to save the girl more hassle, but for no clear rape and sodomy proof. Her testimony was never challenged in any cross-examination, and to this day, is therefore merely 'allegations' he always protested. He even asked to be absentia sentenced, like she did, after they insisted he had to return to the same court system that had lied to him the first time, (but then ditched that ‘fugitive disentitlement doctrine’ after noticing all these backroom transgression etc.) only to refuse the absentia, with no guarantees they would not go back on another deal were they to go on a new trial.
The case could safely be tried in France/Switzerland besides, were the Swiss to extradite him to his homeland or keep him, since they have blocked US extradition already. In short, the legal issue was/is not to avoid conviction then (or to return today), his agreed-on punishment, or even public acknowledgment of guilt that Polanski left the US, but whether he had/has a reasonable expectation of fair (and safe) treatment at his sentencing hearing (or inevitable new remand time after half a year of prison/house arrest already, which far outstrips his agreed upon sentence, or even the 90 days Rittenband wanted). So the question seems likely to be answerable in the negative even more now than then, after his willingness to accept sentencing he openly acknowledged and that punishment – criminal and civil – was actually served many years ago since no one wanted him incarcerated. All they do now, is the same as then, spin out the case as long as possible for public amusement and Cooley’s desire to become Att. Gen., with appeal on appeal dragging it out even longer. His plea is as active as can be.
So, you either could remove the Cooley link again, or let me add the one were Silver explains that the statute has long run out – (and if only so to show how dumb Cooley is I’m sure many agree on only looking at the comments there) and that the plea therefore stands Cooley in effect has already acknowledged himself. I will come back with the other points later. That’s only for starters. Cheers for now. 86.148.18.98 ( talk) 09:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Link drops for the open letter and two referring reliable sources.
original: http://laregledujeu.org/2010/05/02/1397/i-can-remain-silent-no-longer/
NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/movies/03polanski.html
htom ( talk) 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Off2rio, would you get specific about the maintenance you claim this article needs ?
-- Jerome Potts ( talk) 18:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The judge received a probation report and psychiatric evaluation, both indicating that Polanski should not serve jail time,[10] and in response the filmmaker was ordered to ninety days in prison in order to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.[11]
In the article referenced for stating the probation report recommended against jail time, should it not be mentioned as to why? According to that article, they mentioned what a tragic life he had, family killed in the holocuast, discrimination he faced as being a Jew, and other things, to explain how they came to their conclusion. [9] Not sure how to word a summary of this. Could other editors please read through that entire article? Dream Focus 21:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Considering the news that Mr Polanski has been set free by Swiss authorities, I think it's only right that the reason behind his arrest should be included in this article. This is the source material, it makes for quite unsettling reading as its content is very graphic. It also makes quite clear why the controversy surrounding Polanski has not diminished after 32 years. According to this material, he sodomised a child. There should be a review over the legal ramifications and the reasons why he is not going to face charges. I
I was quite open-minded about him and his case until I read this material. In that respect, the fact he will likely never face sentencing over this event only makes the recent decision by the Swiss Justice ministry more unsettling. A point that should be explored in this article.
The People of the State of California vs. Roman Raymond Polanski (April 4, 1977) From the original 37-page manuscript <extensive content removed pending some verification that it is public domain>
I remember from my childhood and puberty that, while at fifth grade there was girl or two in class sexually active (age of eleven full years), at seventh grade (age of thirteen full years) it was widely spread knowledge that girls of that age in large part "became women" and preferred older men, who "knew how to do it". Nature just wasn't stopped with criminal law code which was powerless (compare Romans 8:3) and sin found it's way to manifest (Romans 7:13).
From her own words, she had at least two previous experiences that she did not report as "statutory rape", even obviously being even younger. -- 193.198.186.195 ( talk) 09:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Then it remains whether the actual seduction and sex with minor is "statutory rape", and does it protect girls, when we can roughly say that at least 80% of them had experienced sexual encounters by age of 18 or before. Maybe it was because we were in communism, but on "work actions" girls of 16 were not only experienced, but sovereign priestess and queens of sex, in sense of making men walk on their toes and knowledgeably pulling their strings. 80% of men are not being jailed for statutory rape, which means that "justice" catches only scapegoats. -- 193.198.186.195 ( talk) 10:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed this cut and copy excess twice, it has been posted by User:PatGallacher with this edit summary "whatever the merits of including this in the article, it's legitimate to raise this in the discussion" ...this cut and copy paste here is of no value to the article, personally imo it is a large cut and copy likely copyrighted content of no value at all, but perhaps time will show me mistaken. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This was not a copy and cut addition, it was an undo by the standard procedure for removing questionable deletions. Whether this material should be included in the article is a legitimate matter for discussion. Maybe it should be included in Wikisource? If it's a copyvio that's another matter, but do we have any evidence for this? It could be public domain. PatGallacher ( talk) 19:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you joking? This addition you made is pure cut and copy with no reason at all to be here, please remove it. Or explain what you want to add from it? Off2riorob ( talk) 20:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an UNDO, you added it, you are responsible for it being here on this talkpage,. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Eh? See WP:UNDO. PatGallacher ( talk) 20:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the extensive content per WP:NFC and WP:C. While court judgments are public domain under the US law that governs us, this is not a judgment or a pronouncement by any court official, but a transcript of creative expression of a number of interview subjects, each of whom owns copyright in his or her own words. We don't import content under the presumption that it could be public domain; our copyright policy requires that it be verifiably public domain. Pending some verification that it is, it should be treated like other potentially non-free content and discussed, as needed, with brief quotations. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Would a current even template be sanctioned? There are some recent changes to the situation, but I don't know. Old Al ( Talk) 04:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I've shortened the introduction as requested and moved otherwise deleted citations to the body of the article as appropriate. I've reduced the scope of the intro to a situational background, and in doing so removed references to the Geimer lawsuit and Polanski's most recent arrest. Please feel free to reinsert these if appropriate. — Tonyle ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
There needs to be a serious discussion as to the intended scope of this article. At the moment, it would more properly be titled something along the lines of Public response to the 2009 arrest of Roman Polanski. At the moment it's definitely not focused on the topic of the arrest, but rather the reaction. Furthermore, this should not become a coatrack of everybody's commentary who decided to comment on the issue. That would perhaps be more suitable for a Wikiquote page (though it may be the first of its kind, it would fit the mandate of that project better than this project). Does anyone have a clear idea as to how this article could be focused and what criteria and organizational paradigm we should apply to the "Reaction" section?
It seems problematic to me that an article ostensibly about his arrest never actually mentions why he was arrested. cmadler ( talk) 18:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
"Arrest of Roman Polanski" is ambiguous. Polanski has been arrested more than once (his original 1977 arrest and the 2009 arrest). How about "2009 arrest of Roman Polanski"? Urban XII ( talk) 23:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was: not moved. Station1 ( talk) 01:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
2009 arrest of Roman Polanski → Response to the 2009 arrest of Roman Polanski — As mentioned by several editors, the current title is ambiguous. I don't think this is controversial but it also needs to be updated at Roman Polanski which is locked. Abby Kelleyite ( talk) 17:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an attempt at an analysis of a new story. It is not encyclopedic. I am not prepared to nominate it for speedy deletion but some one should do so. JimCubb ( talk) 00:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Politicians face backlash over Polanski http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7ad75dca-ae06-11de-87e7-00144feabdc0.html?catid=75&SID=google
After outcry, France softens tone on Polanski case http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/entertainment/6129813/after-outcry-france-softens-tone-on-polanski-case/
The Polanski Case: A Gallic Shrug http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/weekinreview/04kimmelman.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&hpw
The first two seem mostly to "boil down" the change in position within the named governements, but the last one is of particular interest, as it describes "A case of morals" (une affaire de moeurs), which was a phrase from the petition, as being the french equivalent of "yada yada". WookMuff ( talk) 03:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to suggest that some of the above contretemps would be avoided if this article were about the entirety of the case from the 1970s forward. Just talking about an arrest for a crime for which there is no article seems to turn BLP a bit on its head, and it does make it seem to be all about the current-day media flap and thus lean toward murky analysis and reaction rather than encyclopedic events. When I was able to edit regularly I often saw this sort of disagreement about an article a symptom of a mistake in scope or framing. -- Dhartung | Talk 09:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is it needed in the first line to repeat polanski's name three times? Off2riorob ( talk) 16:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Arrest is also repeated 5 times in the opening small para. Why the word repetition? The opening para of the lede lede is repetitive and in need of a small rewite. Any comments? Off2riorob ( talk) 17:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Quite notable reaction from NPR's Cokie Roberts, “Roman Polanski is a criminal. You know, he drugged and raped and sodomized a child. And then was a fugitive from justice. As far as I’m concerned, just take him out back and shoot him.” [1] [2] [3] link title [4] [5]..._ 99.142.8.221 ( talk) 02:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The current structure looks like this:
His conviction is not "allegations", and these sections should hence not be sub-sections under "Sexual abuse allegations". Also, it's not meaningful to have "Arrest in Zürich" as a level 3 (sub) section under "Sexual abuse allegations", and then have a new level 2 section called "Reactions to the arrest". The latter should be a sub-section under "Arrest in Zürich" to make sense. Urban XII ( talk) 18:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Now changed to:
Urban XII ( talk) 18:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
SOURCE LINK: "How a girl's stark words got lost in the Polanski spectacle"
Their is a pretty good article from the Los Angeles times, October 25 I think, 2009, that really gives alot of info that I didnt know. For example how the victim went on television I think around 1997 and said "it wasn't rape then" and how Polanski "wasn't forceful". It also tells how someone (im not sure who) told Polanksi if he didn't agree to leave the country he might have long jail. And so Polanksi left and a newspaper said Polanksi Fleed. The article isn't one sided it seems like. It also makes it seem like Polanksi gave the girl alochol and a pill. And it makes you think tha tmaybe he did commit a crime and / or crimes. It has a lot of info. And the writer doesnt seem baist in implying hes guilty or not guilty. Here is the link and I was thinking of putting some info in here and maybe I will, but maybe someone else might want to put some info from this article in this Wikipedia article then? 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 22:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
MY COMMENT This is not news analysis, but something else. ("Creative journalism" was another nomenclature phrase—consider "Black Hawk Down" in initial newspaper incarnation). It is not op-ed, but it was written with a POV (makes a case). Perhaps further comments later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I can read the second half of the transcription of Samantha Gailey's grand jury testimony? I found the first half here, but the second half unfortunately doesn't lead to the right pages!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andj2134saeo23412 ( talk • contribs) 00:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The Smoking Gun link says it was unsealed by by L.A. Superior Court Judge David Wesley. This article, although it is from People magazine, says that the testimony was unsealed around January 2003. http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,625636,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.145.26 ( talk) 07:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, Well, if the Smoking Gun states it, it must be true. I wouldn't risk a lawsuit repeating that source. What about the LA Times and the Grand Jury Testimony? There is a difference is releasing the DECISION of the Grand Jury and the actual Grand Jury testimony. Be careful. Mugginsx ( talk) 09:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Just an observation: It seems to me that this kind of information would be better served on a Court TV-type Blog instead of Wiki. Mugginsx ( talk) 17:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I am with Off2riorob on this, WHY ALL THE REPETITION? It seems to me that the original editiors need to put their heads together and write ONE synopsis of the case. The two sections are almost identical anyway. Mugginsx ( talk) 09:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Different IP addresses keep trying to delete something valid to the article, and add in something totally unrelated. [7] The results of the rape kit are not relevant, because he admitted to having sex with her, in court, in interviews, and in his biography. So whether any semen got on the panties isn't relevant, although I do recall in the documentary they mentioning that there was. And stating that since he fled before sentencing that they could still charge him with all 6 original charges, this complete with credible references, is quite relevant to the man's situation. Comments? Agree, disagree? Dream Focus 10:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Response 4 - (as long as it gets I’m afraid, concerning the Cooley interview/link for now). Again, Geimer’s lawyer himself said in 2003 in an interview with Larry King, the statute has long run out on the other five counts once he pled, thus the plea is as IS. Only a judge can withdraw it or Polanski requesting to do so – his fugitive status has zero bearing on it. The plea stands under Californian law to this day. Cooley had no clues about the case to begin with I’m sure we can agree on – he also said last year his plea is airtight, when it wasn’t – he thought Polanski pleaded to 50 yrs, when he didn't. No one told Polanski it could entail that much, which is legally unethical, no one asked for it but be released on probation, and he pled to max 20 signed and sealed. Cooley based his ‘back on the table’ assumption on the plea he therefore thinks himself still stands, except, it wasn’t correctly submitted then for the 20/50 yr discrepancy. Which on the other hand does not nullify it either, it only proves one of the many ‘failures’ of the law ‘enforced’ on Polanski.
To quote; Rittenband refused to allow Polanski to withdraw his plea and go to trial in the first place. He gave the state/attorneys what they had bargained for: the certainty of conviction while avoiding a costly trial, yet the judge did not give the defendant what he was entitled to if he rejected the probation recommendation: the right to withdraw the plea and go to trial. Hence, plea stands. Had Polanski known it could entail 50 yrs he sure as hell had not entered the plea but asked for a trial, thinking himself innocent of the five [other] counts. This was and is illegal in ‘civilised’ jurisdictions to this day to force on any defendant, and if one were to put themselves in Polanski’s shoes at this juncture, the decision to flee the jurisdiction, becomes understandable because of the clear message that the judge was sending: “I simply ignore the attorney’s/official’s recommendations to save my public face.” He was openly discussing the case, which his illegal, and he openly made his racist stand clear and to exploit Polanski’s status as best he could. And did. Illegal I'm sure.
Under Californian law, a plea may be withdrawn at any time BEFORE judgment, there is no formal judgment until sentencing then and now. Polanski has NOT been sentenced, he is a non-sentenced fugitive, nothing else. Had Polanski gone to jail against request, his attorney could have challenged the judge’s misconduct on appeal, but instead Rittenband goes, I'm not going to give you [further] probation (though he was on probation for ten months already and technically he still is) but a jail sentence (no one wanted) rendering you unable to withdraw your plea bargain, and instead sit in a cell needing to appeal the [uncalled] sentence, and this time not in single confinement for his safety. Guilty pleas have to get approval from a judge to be withdrawn. None has done so.
His plea was recorded after he came and went to and from the US (while filming abroad) before he had to go to Chino and Polanski had demonstrated himself more than willing to submit to final justice, make compensation, returned from overseas expressly to accept his sentence, and later gave an agreed-upon settlement. The judge blackmailed him with either going back to sit out the 48 days on self-deportation, which is unlawful to enforce on a defendant, or send him down for good, which is even more unlawful to corner him. These observations clearly demonstrate the illegalities Polanski was facing then: should he trust a legal system to correct a string of gross injustice that the very same system had just committed by going to jail, hoping that an appeal will resolve them or his status, a process that might take years,(which was Rittenband's idea, instead of maybe saying I want him back inside for a 'second evaluation' to make sure, the 48 days) or should he flee the corrupt/ed system’s jurisdiction. Even the prosecutor said that he would have fled.
For this and the fact that Polanski could not appeal against the evaluation forced on him through Wells using it as punishment already, which was also unlawful, after earlier reports had already given Polanski a clean bill of [mental] health and not to give him jail time, was the reason Rittenband was eventually removed by both attorneys before he wanted to sentence Polanski, two weeks after he was gone. Too late to help the defendant with a fairer judge. Ergo, the plea stands as is, and Cooley is twice wrong. Ask any lawyer to tell you his plea is as is, and only on withdrawal are all six counts back on the table to be retried. But she for one doesn’t want that since she cannot refuse to testify this time, and after her plenty inconsistent ‘interpretations’ of events over the years and contradicting evidence already then, to an outright support of his, any proper trial would soon find it not quite as clean cut as many want it and he could well exonerate himself – bar on the count to which he pled.
He doesn’t want a retrial, because he foremost doesn’t trust the US legal system not to railroad him again, end on remand in danger of attacks, running out of money, advanced age, already corrupted records, or of course biased jurors, and therefore both tried to have the case dismissed several times now. And so far no judge has withdrawn the plea either, not only to keep the mess covered up that was exposed finally, but at the great likelihood of finding Polanski innocent of the five counts with an unbiased jury. The plea then was already struck on the mother’s wishes not mainly to save the girl more hassle, but for no clear rape and sodomy proof. Her testimony was never challenged in any cross-examination, and to this day, is therefore merely 'allegations' he always protested. He even asked to be absentia sentenced, like she did, after they insisted he had to return to the same court system that had lied to him the first time, (but then ditched that ‘fugitive disentitlement doctrine’ after noticing all these backroom transgression etc.) only to refuse the absentia, with no guarantees they would not go back on another deal were they to go on a new trial.
The case could safely be tried in France/Switzerland besides, were the Swiss to extradite him to his homeland or keep him, since they have blocked US extradition already. In short, the legal issue was/is not to avoid conviction then (or to return today), his agreed-on punishment, or even public acknowledgment of guilt that Polanski left the US, but whether he had/has a reasonable expectation of fair (and safe) treatment at his sentencing hearing (or inevitable new remand time after half a year of prison/house arrest already, which far outstrips his agreed upon sentence, or even the 90 days Rittenband wanted). So the question seems likely to be answerable in the negative even more now than then, after his willingness to accept sentencing he openly acknowledged and that punishment – criminal and civil – was actually served many years ago since no one wanted him incarcerated. All they do now, is the same as then, spin out the case as long as possible for public amusement and Cooley’s desire to become Att. Gen., with appeal on appeal dragging it out even longer. His plea is as active as can be.
So, you either could remove the Cooley link again, or let me add the one were Silver explains that the statute has long run out – (and if only so to show how dumb Cooley is I’m sure many agree on only looking at the comments there) and that the plea therefore stands Cooley in effect has already acknowledged himself. I will come back with the other points later. That’s only for starters. Cheers for now. 86.148.18.98 ( talk) 09:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Link drops for the open letter and two referring reliable sources.
original: http://laregledujeu.org/2010/05/02/1397/i-can-remain-silent-no-longer/
NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/movies/03polanski.html
htom ( talk) 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Off2rio, would you get specific about the maintenance you claim this article needs ?
-- Jerome Potts ( talk) 18:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The judge received a probation report and psychiatric evaluation, both indicating that Polanski should not serve jail time,[10] and in response the filmmaker was ordered to ninety days in prison in order to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.[11]
In the article referenced for stating the probation report recommended against jail time, should it not be mentioned as to why? According to that article, they mentioned what a tragic life he had, family killed in the holocuast, discrimination he faced as being a Jew, and other things, to explain how they came to their conclusion. [9] Not sure how to word a summary of this. Could other editors please read through that entire article? Dream Focus 21:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Considering the news that Mr Polanski has been set free by Swiss authorities, I think it's only right that the reason behind his arrest should be included in this article. This is the source material, it makes for quite unsettling reading as its content is very graphic. It also makes quite clear why the controversy surrounding Polanski has not diminished after 32 years. According to this material, he sodomised a child. There should be a review over the legal ramifications and the reasons why he is not going to face charges. I
I was quite open-minded about him and his case until I read this material. In that respect, the fact he will likely never face sentencing over this event only makes the recent decision by the Swiss Justice ministry more unsettling. A point that should be explored in this article.
The People of the State of California vs. Roman Raymond Polanski (April 4, 1977) From the original 37-page manuscript <extensive content removed pending some verification that it is public domain>
I remember from my childhood and puberty that, while at fifth grade there was girl or two in class sexually active (age of eleven full years), at seventh grade (age of thirteen full years) it was widely spread knowledge that girls of that age in large part "became women" and preferred older men, who "knew how to do it". Nature just wasn't stopped with criminal law code which was powerless (compare Romans 8:3) and sin found it's way to manifest (Romans 7:13).
From her own words, she had at least two previous experiences that she did not report as "statutory rape", even obviously being even younger. -- 193.198.186.195 ( talk) 09:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Then it remains whether the actual seduction and sex with minor is "statutory rape", and does it protect girls, when we can roughly say that at least 80% of them had experienced sexual encounters by age of 18 or before. Maybe it was because we were in communism, but on "work actions" girls of 16 were not only experienced, but sovereign priestess and queens of sex, in sense of making men walk on their toes and knowledgeably pulling their strings. 80% of men are not being jailed for statutory rape, which means that "justice" catches only scapegoats. -- 193.198.186.195 ( talk) 10:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed this cut and copy excess twice, it has been posted by User:PatGallacher with this edit summary "whatever the merits of including this in the article, it's legitimate to raise this in the discussion" ...this cut and copy paste here is of no value to the article, personally imo it is a large cut and copy likely copyrighted content of no value at all, but perhaps time will show me mistaken. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This was not a copy and cut addition, it was an undo by the standard procedure for removing questionable deletions. Whether this material should be included in the article is a legitimate matter for discussion. Maybe it should be included in Wikisource? If it's a copyvio that's another matter, but do we have any evidence for this? It could be public domain. PatGallacher ( talk) 19:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you joking? This addition you made is pure cut and copy with no reason at all to be here, please remove it. Or explain what you want to add from it? Off2riorob ( talk) 20:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an UNDO, you added it, you are responsible for it being here on this talkpage,. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Eh? See WP:UNDO. PatGallacher ( talk) 20:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the extensive content per WP:NFC and WP:C. While court judgments are public domain under the US law that governs us, this is not a judgment or a pronouncement by any court official, but a transcript of creative expression of a number of interview subjects, each of whom owns copyright in his or her own words. We don't import content under the presumption that it could be public domain; our copyright policy requires that it be verifiably public domain. Pending some verification that it is, it should be treated like other potentially non-free content and discussed, as needed, with brief quotations. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Would a current even template be sanctioned? There are some recent changes to the situation, but I don't know. Old Al ( Talk) 04:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I've shortened the introduction as requested and moved otherwise deleted citations to the body of the article as appropriate. I've reduced the scope of the intro to a situational background, and in doing so removed references to the Geimer lawsuit and Polanski's most recent arrest. Please feel free to reinsert these if appropriate. — Tonyle ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)