h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It seems that the victim was with Polanski for a photo shoot so photos must be available. Showing those photos would show whether she looked 'up to 25' as claimed by A. Housten

This post has been removed.

I can well believe that she looked older than she was. That's not really the point, though, if they knew she was 13.

If not - more mud stirring, but even so. There was a guilty verdict. He should shut his beak and do his time.

My point concerned all the people jumping in to to defend R.P. To me, it would have seemed far more credible to say 'hey, look at the photos' it was reasonable to assume she was far older than 13, rather than the vague statement made by A Housten. I think very few women would mistake a 13 y old for a 25 y old.



(btw! there was no 'verdict', he plead guilty to a lesser charge... that strange strange US plea 'negotiating')

<<(btw! there was no 'verdict', he plead guilty to a lesser charge... that strange strange US plea 'negotiating')>>

and thats the rub

if he can get the plea bargain put aside due to the judge being dead and elects for a trial, they might have trouble convicting him with a reluctant witness/victim

plus, he's far from being out of Switzerland yet

OH LOOK THE GOODYEAR BLIMP!!!!!!

Just something I've noticed a few people saying:

Polanski didn't plead guilty to rape. He plead guilty to 'sexual activity with a minor' or somesuch.

But yeah, I don't see how 'it was a long time ago' or 'she has forgiven him' are defences.

Gif

This post has been removed.

One of the original charges, which was later plea-bargained down to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl", was sodomy.

From Wikipedia:

Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes[35], a sedative drug, and "despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her"[36][37][38], each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.[39][40][41][42]

So that seems pretty clear.

RF

On the other hand, it could mean other things. See for example:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14164614

'She was arrested and charged with sodomy, which in Georgia can refer to oral sex.'

In any case

In the Independent article anus is mentioned, and in Wiki 3 types of activity are mentioned, so for the Polanski issue it seems clear what sodomy refers to.

How very, very wierd about Georgia though, especially on the laws relating to consensual activities between married partners...

Oh yes, I didn't mean to cast a doubt about the nature of what happened, just mentioning this as a curious aside.

btw: I noticed that Luc Besson has braved the pro-Polanski front (LB has a 13 year old daughter) and Danny the Red feels 'unease'

I'm still unsure (not having read up on this beyond the BBC story I read yesterday) but I got the impression that the plea-bargain was supposed to essentially get him off, more or less (along with the money paid to the victim), and from the sounds of it, *something* happened which made him less untouchable so he legged it and stayed away.

Did the judge go back on the bargain? How illegal is that in the US? Does that override the major problem of a child being raped, here?

If he was a brit we'd have hung, drawn and quartered him already. It's happened before!

My understanding was that the money was paid to the victim much later after she sued him

>> Did the judge go back on the bargain? <<

From what I understand, the original plea bargain was going to let him plead guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse, and the sentence to be 42 days, i.e. time served already. So Polanski would have been released immediately. It seems that Polanski (or his lawyer, or someone) thought the judge was going to renege on this deal, (which may or may not have been legal, in writing, or anything) and hand down a much longer sentence; which is why he fled.

RF

This post has been removed.

Which, I suspect, is the main defence of all the people who are 'supporting' him?

THIS case is exactly why victims of abuse in families and stuff often dont come forward. The person who did the abusing, more often than not, will be seen as being prosecuted by the actual victim who is often seen as a trouble maker, someone who is willing to harm the abuser, break up the family etc.

I would dearly love to know what the subconscious motivation behind the closed ranks and supportive stance that seems to be happening here. I mean, none of us want to think that people we've trusted and admired are not such great people, but seriously. If it's pretty damn straight up that coercion and intercourse of a minor occurred, WHO could possibly say that it's wrong that they are brought to justice. I'm struggling to find a reason for not being disgusted with every single peron who has spoken out in public and said that he doesn't deserve this on any level. I hate to assume that people are just blind and heartless and lacking in any moral framework... But this is not looking good!

This post has been removed.