Arresting a child rapist “outrageous”, says columnist with axe to grind

posted at 11:38 am on September 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The arrest of Roman Polanski by Switzerland is “outrageous,” wrote Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum, normally a sensible center-right voice.  Applebaum proceeds to lecture readers on the “facts” of the case, but then neglects to mention a fact about her own conflict of interest in the case:

Of all nations, why was it Switzerland — the country that traditionally guarded the secret bank accounts of international criminals and corrupt dictators — that finally decided to arrest Roman Polanski? There must be some deeper story here, because by any reckoning the decision was bizarre — though not nearly as bizarre as the fact that a U.S. judge wants to keep pursuing this case after so many decades.

Here are some of the facts: Polanski’s crime — statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl — was committed in 1977. The girl, now 45, has said more than once that she forgives him, that she can live with the memory, that she does not want him to be put back in court or in jail, and that a new trial will hurt her husband and children. There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.

He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment.

Applebaum leaves out a few facts from this rather meager presentation.  As Roger Simon notes, the idea that Polanski didn’t know of the victim’s true age doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, since he had to get her mother’s permission for the photo shoot.   Applebaum also neglects to mention that Polanski drugged her with a Quaalude and champagne, forcibly had sexual intercourse, and then sodomized her afterward.  Polanski negotiated the charge down to statutory rape rather than actual rape, but the actual facts show that this was not a case of an older man with poor eyesight and judgment.

Patterico notes that Applebaum left out another pertinent fact in her blog post:

Applebaum failed to mention that her husband is a Polish foreign minister who is lobbying for Polanski’s case to be dismissed … Radoslaw Sikorski is married to Anne Applebaum[.]  Applebaum failed to mention this little fact.

So at the same time that she was giving readers a fact-challenged screed in support of Polanski, she was failing to disclose that her husband was a Polish official who was lobbying for Polanski’s freedom.

I’m certain that Applebaum sincerely thinks that the charges should be dropped and is not merely using her position at the Post to act as a proxy for her husband.  However, that little factoid should have been presented to her readers to make them aware of her interest in the case.  It certainly could explain why Applebaum left out a number of inconvenient facts from her presentation, all of which make clear why the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office wants Polanski extradited and brought back before a judge.

Polanski raped and sodomized a 13-year-old girl.  The only thing outrageous about his arrest is that it came 32 years after he fled, not from “irrational” punishment, but from justice for his own actions.  It’s outrageous that Polanski’s fans continue to support him even after knowing the facts of the case.  As for Applebaum’s final argument — “If he weren’t famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all” — it’s very clear that if Polanski hadn’t been famous, no one would have bothered to hide him for the last 32 years, and he would have done his jail time decades ago.  That’s completely unworthy of Applebaum, and patently ridiculous.

Update: Jazz Shaw weighs in with “Roman Polanski: Scumbag”.

Update II: The Smoking Gun has the victim’s testimony.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Who ya gonna call?

ACORN!!!

Ogabe on September 28, 2009 at 12:48 PM

He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma.

But then:

He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar.

Anne Applebaum is a moron.

Niko on September 28, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Anybody know how the lefty feminists are handling this one?

TouchingTophet on September 28, 2009 at 12:49 PM

The Washington Post is a corrupting influence . . . particularly when you are a certified moron.

rplat on September 28, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Applebaum and the other Polanski apologists keep repeating this notion that his victim has forgiven him, as if that should absolve him of his deeds.

If he murdered someone, even if the victim’s family had forgiven him, he’d still have to face the music. Why? Because murder still is a CRIME! Statutory rape certainly is less so in Hollywood (and sodomy…well, forget about it…in Hollywood it’s just another way to pass a Friday night), but to us regular yokels, it’s still a crime.

And Applebaum makes the case that his notoriety has been part of his ongoing punishment? The guy won an Oscar, and still casts A list actors in his films. He’s a millionaire and a celebrated artist. That’s not punishment.

Pope Linus on September 28, 2009 at 12:51 PM

I could be mistaken but I recall hearing something about Polanski, and this case a few years back & that the statute of limitations had run out, and he can not long be tried for this!

Confederate on September 28, 2009 at 12:51 PM

I’m going to forward this thread to the trial judge when he’s assigned.

No reason for due process – he’s been tried and convicted by the barracks room lawyers of Hot Air.

:X

Anders on September 28, 2009 at 12:53 PM

in professional stigma

That’s a hoot.

The only thing you can possibly do in Hollywood to offend anyone is to contribute to a Republican.

Raping youngsters is a resume enhancement in that cesspool.

NoDonkey on September 28, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Obama called upon a teacher that not only did not report a case of statutory rape, (it was a man & 15 year old boy), but instead tried to encourage the boy to continue it. This guy proudly brags about it in a book he writes, and Obama makes him the School Safety Czar!

Proof rape of a child is meaningless to scum like Obama.

Jeff from WI on September 28, 2009 at 12:54 PM

I could be mistaken but I recall hearing something about Polanski, and this case a few years back & that the statute of limitations had run out, and he can not long be tried for this!

Confederate on September 28, 2009 at 12:51 PM

There’s no statute of limitations after you’ve already copped a plea to the crime, which Polanski did.

He skipped out right before he was going to be sentenced.

Knucklehead on September 28, 2009 at 12:55 PM

I think the argument goes that because of circumstances the perpetrator moved to Europe and became such a genius that the victim certainly now knows it was worth her while to get in that car and go over that bridge….or something.

Marcus on September 28, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Confederate on September 28, 2009 at 12:51 PM

I was under the assumption that he had already been tried for this and had fled before the sentencing.
Would statute of limitations still apply, as he was tried buy had not served his sentence?

ZeeMI on September 28, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Wow, her husband is a bit of an a-hole. Under this guy, Poles who emigrated, took citizenship and returned for a visit to Poland, were denied exit. Poland refused to recognize their new citizenship and made them obtain Polish passports. Not sure why the US didn’t tell them to piss off.
If I had known he was pulling this crap, I would never have visited Poland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rados%C5%82aw_Sikorski

Blake on September 28, 2009 at 12:57 PM

OOps, Sorry Confederate. I was posting at the same time someone was answering my question. Thanks Knucklehead

ZeeMI on September 28, 2009 at 12:58 PM

No reason for due process – he’s been tried and convicted by the barracks room lawyers of Hot Air.

:X

Anders on September 28, 2009 at 12:53 PM

He already confessed, maron.

Knucklehead on September 28, 2009 at 1:00 PM

There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age.

Wow, who knew there WAS an appropriate age for drugging and having sex with someone against their will?

xblade on September 28, 2009 at 1:02 PM

I guess the fact that she was incompetent due to her age to sign the photo release and that her mother had to sign for her escaped him.

Blake on September 28, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Also, scroll down here and tell me that doesn’t look like a child:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1216443/Roman-Polanski-arrested-1977-underage-sex-charge.html

Diane on September 28, 2009 at 1:03 PM

I was under the assumption that he had already been tried for this and had fled before the sentencing.
Would statute of limitations still apply, as he was tried buy had not served his sentence?

ZeeMI on September 28, 2009 at 12:57 PM

The California Statute of Limitations does not apply in this case since Polanski was already convicted. Even if he hadn’t been convicted the statute of limitations would still not apply. Statutes of limitations only apply when a suspect in a crime has not been identified within a certain time limit. Once the suspect is identified and an arrest warrant issued the clock stops running and the identified suspect can be arrested years or even decades later.

Trafalgar on September 28, 2009 at 1:03 PM

I’m going to forward this thread to the trial judge when he’s assigned.

No reason for due process – he’s been tried and convicted by the barracks room lawyers of Hot Air.

:X

Anders on September 28, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Listen clown, there is no trial judge for you to send this to, he’s already been convicted and by his own admission of guilt. Sheesh!

Trafalgar on September 28, 2009 at 1:07 PM

I wouldn’t mind being stigmatized. Harrison Ford never brings me anything.

exception on September 28, 2009 at 1:08 PM

It’s a shame he isn’t up for an Oscar this year in any category – he’s be as certain a certainty as death or taxes.

Marcus on September 28, 2009 at 1:11 PM

I was under the assumption that he had already been tried for this and had fled before the sentencing.
Would statute of limitations still apply, as he was tried buy had not served his sentence?

ZeeMI on September 28, 2009 at 12:57 PM

He pled guilty. There was no trial. He was sent off to prison for diagnostic testing, and was to return for sentencing but fled. There is no S/L for a sentence.

Blake on September 28, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Anybody know how the lefty feminists are handling this one?

TouchingTophet on September 28, 2009 at 12:49 PM

I looked a little yesterday, and to put it mildly, they don’t like him. Or the whitewash. I don’t want to be in the same room when a feminist hears someone describe rape as “having sex with”.

exception on September 28, 2009 at 1:12 PM

WAPO is now pulling comments exposing who Applebaum’s husband is! Honestly, it’s not like not knowing makes her position any better!

DCJeff on September 28, 2009 at 1:12 PM

We should have sympathy for the most oppressed minority in the world: Hollywood directors. Ever since sexual harrassment laws, their casting couches have yielded meager fare. And since a lot of filming is done in cheaper venues, they can never get good catering. The price of 25 year old single-malt scotch is through the roof. And do you know what the fire insurance is on mansions in Malibu?

So let’s shed a tear for all Hollywood directors, but most especially this poor sod who got caught drugging and forcibly sodomizing a child. He couldn’t even go to his own Oscar after-party. (sniff)

theCork on September 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM

An interesting application of the old principle that ‘turnabout is fair play.’

It was only a few weeks ago that ‘Turbo Tax’Tim Geitner threatened to unleash the dogs of the IRS on the US branches of Swiss Banking giant UBS unless they turned over their list of American customers with overseas accounts on the off-chance that they might be avoiding taxes. Now the Swiss have returned the favor by tossing this legal stink-bomb into the Obama Administration’s lap. What was Saul Alinsky’s 4th Rule for Radicals? “Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.”

So here we have a 40-year old case where the Perp – who happens to be a totemic icon of the President’s most vocal supporters – fled the jurisdiction and spend decades thumbing his nose at the American Court System. Now the Swiss have offered up to a fugitive from justice with a bow around his neck saying, “OK lads, the ball’s in your court. Let’s see how YOU define the rule of law.”

HAH!

potkas7 on September 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Also, scroll down here and tell me that doesn’t look like a child:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1216443/Roman-Polanski-arrested-1977-underage-sex-charge.html

Diane on September 28, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Thanks. I was wondering when someone was going to produce a photo. All these young models with tons of makeup still look under 18. Without makeup, they look like children. And I have no doubt she spoke like a 13 year old girl. I have to say that she resembles Sharon Tate a little bit.

Blake on September 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM

And Debra Winger is on my $h*te list.

Blake on September 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM

I believe the DA had to renew requests for extraditions. They don’t last forever. According to their spokeswoman, they have been monitoring his movements for years. This time, he announced in advance that he was going to Switzerland so they could renew their request for his extradition in time to get him.

Blake on September 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM

To all of you who may have had doubts as to what a real scumbag this a-hole is see the following:

Two weeks after Polanski plied her with Champagne and a Quaalude, Samantha Gailey appeared before an L.A. grand jury and recalled Polanski’s predatory behavior in a Mulholland Canyon home owned by Jack Nicholson.

The teenager’s troubling–and contemporaneous–account of her abuse at Polanski’s hands begins with her posing twice for topless photos that the director said were for French Vogue. The girl then told prosecutors how Polanski directed her to, “Take off your underwear” and enter the Jacuzzi, where he photographed her naked. Soon, the director, who was then 43, joined her in the hot tub. He also wasn’t wearing any clothes and, according to Gailey’s testimony, wrapped his hands around the child’s waist.

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson’s home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he “keep away.” According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later “started to have intercourse with me.” At one point, according to Gailey’s testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was “on the pill,” and “When did you last have your period?” Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, “Would you want me to go in through your back?” before he “put his penis in my butt.” Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, “Because I was afraid of him.”

Following his indictment on various sex charges, Polanski agreed to a plea deal that spared him prison time (he had spent about 45 days in jail during a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation). But when it seemed that a Superior Court judge might not honor the deal–and sentence Polanski to prison–the director fled the country.

Below you’ll find links to Gailey’s grand jury testimony, the heart of which runs 36 pages (we’ve broken the transcript into two 18-page sections for easier navigation).

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia1.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html

see for yourselves.

UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on September 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Listen clown, there is no trial judge for you to send this to, he’s already been convicted and by his own admission of guilt. Sheesh!

Trafalgar on September 28, 2009 at 1:07 PM

He plead to 1 count out of 6 and the judge wanted to renege.

The LA district attorney wants to run for mayor and needs some big publicity. I doubt the Swiss can even extradite him even though they are running scared from the US now that we’ve stated we want them to open up their banking system.

Should be interesting to see how this plays out.

Anders on September 28, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Under the law, it does not matter if the rapist knew the child’s age. What is relevant is the child’s age and not what the rapist did or did not know.

Dhuka on September 28, 2009 at 1:37 PM

I doubt the Swiss can even extradite him even though they are running scared from the US now that we’ve stated we want them to open up their banking system.

Anders on September 28, 2009 at 1:36 PM

I don’t see any reason why Switzerland can’t extradite him. They wouldn’t have bothered arresting him if they thought they couldn’t. And I’m not sure what the US wanting them to open up their banking system has to do with it. And they’re not exactly scared of France or Poland either.

Trafalgar on September 28, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Polanski has always been a sexual adventurer. He was not faithful to Sharon Tate while he courted her or even after they were married. Tate waited as long as she could before telling him of her pregnancy because she knew he would coerce an abortion upon her. The world was too cruel a place to bring a child into. Polanski was a nihilist at best. (These observations are from a Manson book I’m reading at the moment.)

thegreatbeast on September 28, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Shameful behavior by both Applebaum-Sikorski and Wapo.

Just shameful.

SilverStar830 on September 28, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Under the law, it does not matter if the rapist knew the child’s age. What is relevant is the child’s age and not what the rapist did or did not know.

Dhuka on September 28, 2009 at 1:37 PM

And in this case, that’s less important than her coninually saying “no”.

exception on September 28, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Polanski hasn’t paid for his crime – that is the whole point.

He is a fugitive from justice, just like Marc Rich was when Bill Clinton pardoned him.

He is also a rapist, a pervert and a pedophile.

I hope that the California justice system puts him in the California State Prison at Corcoran, along with Charles Manson.

This illustrates how morally obtuse the media (Anne Applebaum) and Hollywood (Debra Winger – can she get a part in anyting these days?) establishments are.

I have no doubt that the MSM and Hollywood love Polanski.

molonlabe28 on September 28, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Anders on September 28, 2009 at 1:36 PM

You’re nuts. We have an extradition treaty with Switzerland. And we’ve been trying to extradite this guy ever since he fled under 5 different District Attorneys.

Blake on September 28, 2009 at 1:48 PM

The victim thinks the charges should be dropped. Let’s see; she is from California, was raised by a mother who left her alone with a movie director to take bikini photos at night and received a large financial settlement from the rapist. She’s credible.

Kind of reminds me of the little boys who needed to be paid millions to say michael jackson wasn’t a child molesting pervert.

peacenprosperity on September 28, 2009 at 1:51 PM

who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial

Someone can correct me but I believe he was in fact convicted and out on parole pending appeal or sentencing. He was convicted of at least having sex with a minor.

peacenprosperity on September 28, 2009 at 1:53 PM

But the U.S. Marshals confirmed it has been watching Polanski’s movements. A provisional arrest warrant was issued after the Marshals and the Los Angeles Police Department learned Polanski would be traveling to Switzerland via Vienna.

Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons told ABC News that this is not the first time Polanski has been in this situation, but he typically hears about a possible arrest ahead of time.

“He hears that he might be arrested if he goes to another country, so he doesn’t go,” she said, using England as an example.

If and when Polanski is extradited, she said, he will appear in a Los Angeles court. Gibbons said Switzerland is just one of several countries U.S. authorities have worked with to take Polanski into custody.

“We have made requests through diplomatic channels where we’ve received info that he will be traveling to other countries that have a treaty with the U.S.,” she said, calling Polanski a “fugitive.” “There has been several times where we have prepared necessary documents with the countries that have treaties with the U.S.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/International/roman-polanski-hires-swiss-lawyer-arrest-1978-us/Story?id=8689949&page=2

Blake on September 28, 2009 at 1:57 PM

The California Statute of Limitations does not apply in this case since Polanski was already convicted. Even if he hadn’t been convicted the statute of limitations would still not apply. Statutes of limitations only apply when a suspect in a crime has not been identified within a certain time limit. Once the suspect is identified and an arrest warrant issued the clock stops running and the identified suspect can be arrested years or even decades later.
Trafalgar on September 28, 2009 at 1:03 PM


OK I get that but it flies in the face of other cases. In 1962 Morris and the Anglin brothers escaped from Alcatraz. When a person escapes from a prison this is also considered a crime, but according to several things I have read if Morris, or the brothers were alive 20 years after the escape they could not be convicted of escaping, or sent back to prison for their previous crimes because of the Statue of limitations! It has also been said that the man who hijacked and robbed an airliner 25 years ago, than jumped out over the Rocky Mountains could not be tried for the crimes because no one was killed, and time has now run out!

Anyway, don’t get me wrong I think this rapes dirt bag should be brought back. I’m just trying to see what angle the commie left will use to keep him free!

Thanks for the input y’all

Confederate on September 28, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Someone can correct me but I believe he was in fact convicted and out on parole pending appeal or sentencing. He was convicted of at least having sex with a minor.

peacenprosperity on September 28, 2009 at 1:53 PM

No. He was on bail when he entered a plea of no contest (which is the same as guilty in criminal law). He was then ordered to report to a prison for diagnostic testing. The judge wanted to see the report before sentencing him. The prison completed the testing and released him. He was to report to court but his atty had asked the judge if he could go to europe for some shindig and the judge said okay. He was still on bail but never returned from europe.

Blake on September 28, 2009 at 2:06 PM

I’m just trying to see what angle the commie left will use to keep him free!

Confederate on September 28, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Their secret weapon, “poof all charges dropped, Eric Holder”

Knucklehead on September 28, 2009 at 2:08 PM

…but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar.

Yep, some professional stigma he’s got going there….

As for her assertion that we don’t go after non-famous people: John List and Dennis Rader come to mind.

Kafir on September 28, 2009 at 2:10 PM

if Morris, or the brothers were alive 20 years after the escape they could not be convicted of escaping, or sent back to prison for their previous crimes because of the Statue of limitations!

Confederate on September 28, 2009 at 2:01 PM

I’m not sure if they couldn’t have been convicted for the escape since they were certainly identified and an arrest warrant was certainly issues for the escape. I am however absolutely positive that they would have been sent back to prison for the previous crimes since they’d already been convicted and the statute of limitations is a non-issue at that point.

Trafalgar on September 28, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Confederate on September 28, 2009 at 2:01 PM

No. Those cases have nothing to do with this one for many reasons. If he had never been arrested there would still be no S/L problem. The S/L is so people will not discover many years later, that they have charges against them, that they can no longer defend, because so many years have passed.

But, when a warrant is issued, and you know about it, and the state has actively sought your return, you can’t whine and say you are being denied the right to a speedy trial, just because you have managed to avoid being arrested on it.

But, this has nothing to do with Polanski’s case. He pled guilty. There is no S/L issue. I doubt that they will even mess with the failure to appear charge.

Blake on September 28, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Their secret weapon, “poof all charges dropped, Eric Holder”

Knucklehead on September 28, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Fortunately, Eric Holder has no say in this, it’s a California issue, and even if the Dept. of Justice had any authority here, they couldn’t drop charges since he’s already been convicted.

Trafalgar on September 28, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Sharon Tate was unavailable for comment

Wade on September 28, 2009 at 2:29 PM

There is one thing to keep in mind here and that Polanski himself may have been complicit in his own “capture”.
His recent appeal with the film, etc. has been flatly rejected by a California judge unless he returns but the judge was sympathetic to his case. At worse he gets bail but can’t leave the country. When he gets back it’s highly likely that he will be allowed to vacate his plea due to judicial misconduct. At which point I think it probable that the State of California simply drops the case. The only evidence not dependent on victim testimony is the DNA evidence and that gets you statutory rape at best. I doubt the victim will testify and the defense can get her original statement thrown out since they are not being offered they chance to face the accuser. Polanski may even still cop a plea in return for a 6 month sentence in club fed.

Rocks on September 28, 2009 at 2:34 PM

Don’t rule out Ahrnold simply pardoning him either.

Rocks on September 28, 2009 at 2:35 PM

Anders on September 28, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Judges are not required to accept plea bargins. So where is the so called renege.

chemman on September 28, 2009 at 2:38 PM

I doubt the victim will testify and the defense can get her original statement thrown out since they are not being offered they chance to face the accuser.

Rocks on September 28, 2009 at 2:34 PM

Prior testimony under oath is not subject to the hearsay rule and is as admissable as direct testimony.

Trafalgar on September 28, 2009 at 2:43 PM

Sharon Tate was unavailable for comment

Wade on September 28, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Is that some misguided attempt at humor or just some moral relativism?

Anders on September 28, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Prior testimony under oath is not subject to the hearsay rule and is as admissable as direct testimony.

Trafalgar on September 28, 2009 at 2:43 PM

yes but if the victim flatly refuses to testify now what use is that statement? They get it in and then have to explain the victim won’t back it up now? The defense will have a field day with that in front of a jury.

Rocks on September 28, 2009 at 2:51 PM

Should be interesting to see how this plays out.

Anders on September 28, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Nice work, buttsniffer. You call all the rape victims sluts, do you?

Jaibones on September 28, 2009 at 2:53 PM

So at the same time that she was giving readers a fact-challenged screed in support of Polanski, she was failing to disclose that her husband was a Polish official who was lobbying for Polanski’s freedom.

Applebaum knew the facts and chose to lie/coverup. The Washington Post should terminate her asap.

TN Mom on September 28, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Maybe one of the reasons she didn’t want to endure all of this again is things like, oh, say, blogs advertising the details of the assault and even more perverts out there getting aroused by this injustice against her.

Just sayin’.

Did you really have to do that? What’s gotten into everyone?

I’m disgusted. Polanski, the mother and the people advertising the details online should all be held to account for their disgusting and irresponsible actions.

gocatholic on September 28, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Nice work, buttsniffer. You call all the rape victims sluts, do you?

Jaibones on September 28, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Not sure I did that. I do wonder how ‘innocent’ she was though. Feel free to call me names – buttsniffer is kind of cute, dear.

5/6 charges clearly could not stick and he plead to 1, the smallest 1, probably as risk mitigation.

I also question the timing. He has 2 homes at least in Switzerland and has been in and out of the country for decades. Why has this move been made right now when we have a democrat LA DA running for Mayor who needs to make a name for himself and co-incidentally a Dem President…

A lot of this stinks to high heaven. Easy on the moral indignation. If and when this comes to court we’ll find out a bit more.

Anders on September 28, 2009 at 3:01 PM

The victim will testify. I can’t see her fleeing to France to avoid a subpeona. And if she refuses to testify, she’s looking at contempt charges.

Also, I wouldn’t assume that there will be a trial. There is no guarantee that a court will allow him to withdraw his plea in that he entered it knowingly and voluntarily.

Blake on September 28, 2009 at 3:02 PM

Lots of bad info being tossed around on this thread, (especially by Anders)

First – Plea Offers are between the GOVERNMENT/STATE and the DEFENDANT. Unless a Judge “binds” themselves to follow the offer (NOT done in this case), the judge is free to disregard the offer and impose a sentence in accordance with the law. In every case I’ve ever seen, before a defendant enters a plea of guilty, the judge tells them that the court is NOT bound by the offer.

Second – Statute of Limitations does not apply to someone who has pled guilty and is awaiting sentencing AND it only applies to a situation where the government KNOWS or SHOULD KNOW, that a crime has been committed, but has not brought CHARGES within the required time. If a person is charged with a crime within the stautorily required time, there is no longer a statute of limitations issue. Here, not only was he CHARGED, but he PLED.

Idiots should not try to practice law and really shouldn’t put their ignorance on display for everyone to see.

sheesh!

Fatal on September 28, 2009 at 3:03 PM

I looked a little yesterday, and to put it mildly, they don’t like him. Or the whitewash. I don’t want to be in the same room when a feminist hears someone describe rape as “having sex with”.

exception on September 28, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Yeah, I still remember the feminist protest march on D.C. during the Juanita Broderick rape trial. Those NOW members are really dedicated to finding out the truth.

Fortunately, Eric Holder has no say in this, it’s a California issue, and even if the Dept. of Justice had any authority here, they couldn’t drop charges since he’s already been convicted.

Trafalgar on September 28, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Good point. I’m just glad the Treasury Dept doesn’t have the authority to control major banks or auto manufacturers. Also happy that secured bond holders can’t be denied their money at a bankruptcy court in favor of a labor union, and be threatened by the federal government into silent compliance. AG Holder will have to follow the Constitution on this one!

TugboatPhil on September 28, 2009 at 3:05 PM

yes but if the victim flatly refuses to testify now what use is that statement? They get it in and then have to explain the victim won’t back it up now? The defense will have a field day with that in front of a jury.

Rocks on September 28, 2009 at 2:51 PM

The previous testimony is very valuable. If the victim refuses to testify then her prior testimony will stand since it has already been subject to cross-examination and it will be damning (and as, Blake pointed out, she’ll face contempt charges since witnesses don’t have a 5th Amendment right not to testify). If, however, the victim does testify and claims that her previous testimony was false, it’s the prosecution who will have the field day, claiming she was either lying then, or she’s lying now. And it’ll be up to the jury to decide which it is. Most juries would tend to believe the first-time testimony of a young girl than the testimony of a woman who has made several comments about the rape in the past and says she has forgiven Polanski. If she now claims her former testimony was false, why would she have felt the need to forgive?

Trafalgar on September 28, 2009 at 3:12 PM

I do wonder how ‘innocent’ she was though.
Anders on September 28, 2009 at 3:01 PM

No need to wonder. It’s against to the law to drug, rape and sodomize a 13 year old even if she’s done it with half the school. Her “innocence” is irrelevant.

Rocks on September 28, 2009 at 3:12 PM

It’s against to the law to drug, rape and sodomize a 13 year old anybody…

Rocks on September 28, 2009 at 3:12 PM

Sorry, it needed fixing!

Trafalgar on September 28, 2009 at 3:17 PM

Trafalgar on September 28, 2009 at 3:12 PM

Listen, I hear you. But it will look bad for the DA if he tries to force this woman to take the stand. Politically they won’t do it. If she does she can claim she was confused and may have consented to everything. She just isn’t sure, which leaves you with the statutory rape. I think they just let Polanksi cop again and he gets a few months in minimum security. They will throw out his plea deal for sure. The judge practically said he would.

Rocks on September 28, 2009 at 3:18 PM

Trafalgar on September 28, 2009 at 3:17 PM

No problem, you’re right.

Rocks on September 28, 2009 at 3:18 PM

“though not nearly as bizarre as the fact that a U.S. judge wants to keep pursuing this case after so many decades.”

Uhm, Polanski has already been tried and found guilty. What he hasn’t done is server his sentence. He has been a fugitive for decades.

But hey With Holder as AG and Obama as Prez I’m sure Polanski can buy a pardon at any time.

“The girl, now 45, has said more than once that she forgives him”,

Irrelevant

“ that she can live with the memory,”

Irrelevant

“that she does not want him to be put back in court or in jail,”

Irrelevant

“ and that a new trial will hurt her husband and children.”

Irrelevant, no need for a “new” trial.

“There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age.”

Oh please, Irrelevant, he’s already convicted, he can seek an appeal from prison just like everybody else.

“Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else.”

Ya it’s called being a fugitive. That’s what fugitives do, flee and hide, do not go into countries that extradite.

“He did commit a crime,”

Bingo!

“but he has paid for the crime in many,”

many ways:
In notoriety,

Irrelevant

“in lawyers’ fees,”

Irrelevant, everybody in prison has accrued lawyers’ fees

“in professional stigma.”

Child rape will do that. Irrelevant

“He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar.”

Cuz he is a convicted Child rapist.

“He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.”

Well after he pays his dept to society he can.

“He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee.”
But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment.”

Golly, I wonder how many people currently in prison today would have fled if they had the means to do so?

Fear of punishment is also known as a “deterrent”. If you don’t want the punishment, don’t do the crime.

The fact that he fled is not going to garner sympathy with anyone but idiots.

DSchoen on September 28, 2009 at 3:22 PM

If she does she can claim she was confused and may have consented to everything. She just isn’t sure, which leaves you with the statutory rape.

Rocks on September 28, 2009 at 3:18 PM

You may be right on the political side of things, I don’t know. On the legal side though, she cannot claim that she ‘may have consented’. Under the law, a 13 year-old is incapable of giving consent.

Trafalgar on September 28, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Don’t rule out Ahrnold simply pardoning him either.

Rocks on September 28, 2009 at 2:35 PM

I can’t see Ahrnold wanting to become an eunuch any time soon.

Dusty on September 28, 2009 at 3:22 PM

I’m going to forward this thread to the trial judge when he’s assigned.

No reason for due process – he’s been tried and convicted by the barracks room lawyers of Hot Air.

:X

Anders on September 28, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Isn’t it simply awful Anders how people express their opinions about poor old Polanski? How dare they! I mean, so what if he was convicted. It was only one count of six, right? And it was only just a little crime, right? With a little girl, right? A little girl who testified that …

Polanski performed various sexual acts on her after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes. Polanski kissed her, performed cunnilingus on her, penetrated her vaginally, and then penetrated her anally, each time after being told ‘no’ and being asked to stop.

Maybe she was lying, right? Except he pled guilty. Oh well. Give the guy a break. I mean, I may get banned from HotAir for posting the above awful description of the crime he committed and pled guilty to but heaven forbid anyone here show revulsion towards him.

Rod on September 28, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Apart from everything else, it would be delicious if that preening narcissist Obama were to intervene on Polanski’s behalf, incur the voters’ wrath, and then fail.

Kralizec on September 28, 2009 at 4:29 PM

Apologists for crimes against children, please shut up!

Enough already for feeling sorry that Polanski was “panicky.” I’m sure Michael Vick felt “panicky” but he had the decency to serve his time and has/is paying dearly for his crime, unlike the despicable Polanski. And Plaxico Burress’s courage in the face of “panic” is commendable. Men serve their time; boys avoid responsibility and are enabled by those who give support to their disgusting crimes.

Mae on September 28, 2009 at 4:46 PM

— though not nearly as bizarre as the fact that a U.S. judge wants to keep pursuing this case after so many decades.

And whose fault is it that so many decades have passed?

You stupid twit…this is what happens when you flee justice…justice doesn’t go away, it’s merely delayed. The situation doesn’t get better because you get away with it for so long, it gets worse every day a man judged guilty is allowed to get away with his crime.

James on September 28, 2009 at 5:06 PM

Ed is right to expose the author’s nondisclosure on conflicting interests. Ed doesn’t dispute that Polanski appears to have been a model citizen since the 1977 event or that the victim wants the matter dropped. Ed doesn’t mention that it was Polanski’s wife and child that were brutally murdered by Charles Manson and his groupies or that Polanski paid financial compensation to the victim on terms that were satisfactory to her. The “cast the first stone” conservatives may have no qualms about pushing this case, but I think the sensible thing to do is drop it in accordance with the victim’s wishes. The alternative is a media circus that will dwarf the OJ case, exploit the victim, reward Manson by putting him back in the spotlight, and will make Polanski suffer and pay for his crime because God knows he hasn’t suffered nearly enough in this life.

Mark30339 on September 28, 2009 at 5:17 PM

This is all about class, I’m sure. It simply outrages the brandy-sniffers that someone from the DA’s office wearing synthetic fabrics might get to prosecute “one of theirs.”

What an insult to cite Polanski’s escape from the Nazis as mitigating circumstances. My husband’s father and his siblings escaped both Nazis and commies, and are all deeply moral people. A number of them are big, burly mountain-man types and would be the first reaching for a rope to handle a scumbag like Polanski the old-fashioned way.

evergreen on September 28, 2009 at 5:20 PM

Polanski’s wife and child that were brutally murdered by Charles Manson and his groupies

Mark30339

Care to walk us through your defense of Polanski based on his wife being murdered almost a decade before he commited anal rape on a 7th grader?

Is that a get out of jail free card for all crimes, or just the anal rape of pubescents?

Terry_Dyne on September 28, 2009 at 5:40 PM

Statute of limitations? He pled GUILTY. He was awaiting sentencing when the perverted bastard ran to hide in Frogland. Now the only thing left is the paperwork…

Woodman1954 on September 28, 2009 at 5:45 PM

i just read the testimony…. i am really pissed now. Who the &*%%$ can do that to a little girl? If i were that girls dad, id be in jail for many years to say the least. Put him in jail, let him know how it feels to be anal raped without lube.

Donut on September 28, 2009 at 5:45 PM

Ed doesn’t dispute that Polanski appears to have been a model citizen since the 1977

According to stories I’ve read (yes, shaky sourcing), Polanski was known to be cheating on Sharon Tate at the time of her murder.

Moreover, as others have noted, when he fled to France he later started an “affair” with the then 15-year old Natassja Kinski.

I’d say having sex with a 15 year old girl when Polanski was about 48 is not evidence of someone behaving like a “model citizen.”

Puritan moralist that I am.

SteveMG on September 28, 2009 at 5:46 PM

though not nearly as bizarre as the fact that a U.S. judge wants to keep pursuing this case after so many decades.

The Judge in the original case is dead. No judge is “pursuing this.”

This was pushed, if you will, by the LA prosecutor.

Also, we have the fact of a fugitive on the loose.

That’s an additional criminal act.

How many crimes does one get to commit because you make great films? Is there a limit? After 3 you’re arrested? 10?
50?

SteveMG on September 28, 2009 at 5:49 PM

Mark30339 on September 28, 2009 at 5:17 PM

Mark, I’m going to assume you’re a decent fellow.

Did you ever, in your wildest dreams, think you’d ever be pleading for mercy for a child rapist and casting aspersions on those calling for justice to be served?

If not, try divorcing your politics from your passioned pleas: you’ll be able to see more clearly.

Rod on September 28, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Some excellent points made here in this article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/sep/28/roman-polanski-arrest-hollywood

Anders on September 28, 2009 at 6:31 PM

Castrate and cut off the primary member then let him go. A little Muslim justice…/s

wepeople on September 28, 2009 at 6:36 PM

“OK lads, the ball’s in your court. Let’s see how YOU define the rule of law.”

HAH!

potkas7 on September 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM

potkas you’re so right!! The comment was that this is payback for US demanding Swiss bank accounts.
Polanski was arrested on an international warrant. He had been a frequent visitor and even owned a resort chalet. A lawyer wondered how this could happen.
Love it when Bambi &c get some payback.

Flying Royal Scots

Caststeel on September 28, 2009 at 6:54 PM

Don’t rule out Ahrnold simply pardoning him either.

Rocks on September 28, 2009 at 2:35 PM

No way; even Arnold isn’t THAT stupid…

Khun Joe on September 28, 2009 at 10:36 PM

Castrate and cut off the primary member then let him go. A little Muslim justice…/s

wepeople on September 28, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Muslim justice in this case is let the man pay the girls family a small price and stone the girl.

darktood on September 29, 2009 at 7:13 AM

They all act like he hasn’t been convicted. They don’t need to try him at all.

seven on September 29, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Some excellent points made here in this article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/sep/28/roman-polanski-arrest-hollywood

Anders on September 28, 2009 at 6:31 PM

No, just the same old refuted excuses by you pro kiddie rapists.

Blake on September 29, 2009 at 11:38 AM

Polanski’s crime — statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl — was committed in 1977. The girl, now 45, has said more than once that she forgives him, that she can live with the memory, that she does not want him to be put back in court or in jail, and that a new trial will hurt her husband and children. There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age.

All of that, outrageous CRAP.

It’s entirely UNBELIEVABLE that Polansky “did not know her real age” — in fact, ludicrous to even suggest as much.

That the victim’s “long since forgiven (Polanksy)” is also ridiculous in a criminal context. As in, so what, does not remove the crime committed by Polanksi.

And victims of sexual crime (and the rest) oftentimes DO “forgive” the perpetrators, because some people need to move on with their lives and forgiving awful deeds done to self or loved ones is the only way to do that; eventually, you have to let go of the suffering involved and come to some place of acceptance and “forgiveness” in order to both forget the pain involved and to avoid acting out on that pain against others.

But it has nothing to do with the responsibilities of the perpetrator, whose deed/s remain before society as to be judged based upon those deed/s.

This lady’s (WAPO writer’s, Anne Applebaum’s) mentality is disturbed.

Lourdes on September 29, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Amending what I just wrote: though it’s possible that Polanski “did not know her real age” (the victim’s), it’s implausible, unbelievable that he did not know she was UNDERAGE. There’s no way a girl under eighteen is somehow not even curiously questioned by any responsible male in a potentially sexual situation as to being eighteen or not.

Lourdes on September 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Applebaum and other Polanski-apologists are looking for an out. And their anger at Polanksi being arrested is them looking for an out.

Yes, he’s a great film director. But great film director’s violate the boundaries of others just like any human being can and some do. His creative and technical talent do not excuse his criminal behavior, to put it simply.

Lourdes on September 29, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Sad

Rape a girl:

You’re the man

Kill a terrorist:

You hate black people or something

blatantblue on September 28, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Yeah, it really is sad and it’s the way you just summarized, unfortunately, it really is: some sort of re-emerging disappearance of qualities that have made our species human, just disappearing…

Lourdes on September 29, 2009 at 12:47 PM

As Roger Simon notes, the idea that Polanski didn’t know of the victim’s true age doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, since he had to get her mother’s permission for the photo shoot. Applebaum also neglects to mention that Polanski drugged her with a Quaalude and champagne, forcibly had sexual intercourse, and then sodomized her afterward. Polanski negotiated the charge down to statutory rape rather than actual rape, but the actual facts show that this was not a case of an older man with poor eyesight and judgment.

Well, Polansky’s entirely a scumbag cockroach and I’m not going to ever watch any of his films again. Disgusting pondscum inhuman lump of snot.

Lourdes on September 29, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3