Applebaum blames the victim for the rape

posted at 10:12 am on September 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday, I just considered Anne Applebaum to have a conflict of interest over Roman Polanski’s arrest in Switzerland.  After her response to criticism for failing to disclose her husband’s efforts to get charges dropped against the director, it seems clear that Applebaum has lost whatever sense she formerly had — and that her readers are overwhelmingly repulsed by it.  In responding to Patterico, Applebaum scoffs at the notion that the 13-year-old girl had been victimized — because she called her mother before the attack.  I’m not kidding:

Of course, there were some very legitimate disagreements, including two excellent ones from my colleagues Gene Robinson and Richard Cohen, and I take some of their points. But to them, and to all who imagine that the original incident at the heart of this story was a straightforward and simple criminal case, I recommend reading the transcript of the victim’s testimony (here in two parts) — including her descriptions of the telephone conversation she had with her mother from Polanski’s house, asking permission to be photographed in Jack Nicholson’s jacuzzi — and not just the salacious bits.

As one commenter on the site noted, if Applebaum finds the description of rape and sodomy “salacious”, she needs help.  In any event, the transcript does not show the girl asking for or receiving her mother’s permission to have her picture taken in a jacuzzi, let alone in the nude.  Patterico updates his readers on exactly what the transcript does show:

Q. What happened out there after he indicated he wished to take pictures of you in the jacuzzi?

A. We went inside and called my mother.

Q. When you say “we called,” did you call or did Mr. Polanski call?

A. He told me to and I talked and then he talked and then I talked again.

Q. What did you tell your mother?

A. She goes, “Are you all right?

I went, “Uh-huh.”

And she says, “Do you want me to come pick you up?”

And I went, “No.”

And he said that we’d be home kind of late because it had already gotten dark out.

Q. When you said “he said,” did he tell you or did you hear him tell your mother on the phone?

A. He told my mother.

Q, Did he tell your mother any other things?

A. Not that I was listening to.

Q. After talking to your mother on the telephone, what happened?

A. We went out and I got in the jacuzzi.

Nowhere in this transcript is this “permission” to get photographed in a jacuzzi mention.  But let’s say for a moment that it did, and that the mother said that it was OK to get in the jacuzzi to snap some photos.  Does Applebaum believe that it amounted to permission to sexually abuse a 13-year-old girl, and that such an agreement somehow trumps the girl’s repeated demands that Polanski stop attacking her?  And this doesn’t even begin to address the fact that Polanski drugged the victim first to make her more compliant.

Applebaum crosses the line into some despicable territory here.  She argues that once someone gets into a jacuzzi, regardless of their protestations and their refusals, that a girl is fair game for a rapist no matter what her age.  No no longer means no if the shameless hussy leads on the poor, victimized male.

Meanwhile, even the French have begun to rethink Polanski:

After two days of widespread expressions of support for jailed filmmaker Roman Polanski, from European political leaders as well as leading cultural figures there and in the United States, the mood was shifting among French politicians Tuesday about whether the government should have rushed to rally around the Oscar-winning director.

Marc Laffineur, the vice-president of the French assembly and a member of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s ruling center-right party, the UMP, took issue with the French culture and foreign minister’s remarks supporting Mr. Polanski, saying “the charge of raping a child 13 years old is not something trivial, whoever the suspect is.”

Within the Green party, Daniel Cohn-Bendit — a French deputy in the European parliament whose popularity is rising — also criticized Sarkozy administration officials for leaping too quickly to Mr. Polanski’s side despite the serious nature of his crime. On the extreme right, the father and daughter politicians Jean-Marie and Marine Le Pen also attacked the ministers, saying they were supporting “a criminal pedophile in the name of the rights of the political-artistic class.” …

The mood was even more hostile in blogs and e-mails to newspapers and news magazines. Of the 30,000 participants in an online poll by the French daily Le Figaro, more than 70 percent said Mr. Polanski, 76, should face justice. And in the magazine Le Point, more than 400 letter writers were almost universal in their disdain for Mr. Polanski.

That contempt was not only directed at Mr. Polanski, but at the French class of celebrities — nicknamed Les People — who are part of Mr. Polanski’s rarefied Parisian world. Letter writers to Le Point scorned Les People as the “crypto-intelligentsia of our country” who deliver “eloquent phrases that defy common sense.”

In other words, the vast majority of French people feel the same way about Polanski as the vast majority of Americans.  In both countries, sympathy for a child rapist seems isolated to the entertainment elite and the media sycophants who love them.

Breaking on Hot Air

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 4

I weep for the soul of people. God should never have given mankind free will. He knew this was what people would do with it and he demonstrated it as well.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:56 AM

The sentiment you just expressed is satanic. The thought of you weeping crocodile tears for any soul but your own is just laughable. You worship at an altar of lies.

alliebobbitt on September 30, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Applebaum is a disgrace to her sex species.

iam7545 on September 30, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Had to FIFY. It is clear that many men (responsible fathers, no doubt) here are also offended by her defense of a child molester and rationalization on his behalf.

And as for Thacker: Too much stupidity there to fix with a few simple keystrokes. He left an incredible suckhole of stupid on my computer screen.

Tom_OC on September 30, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Has there been any comments by NOW concerning this issue?

Zaire67 on September 30, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Not NOW, not ever…

right2bright on September 30, 2009 at 12:11 PM

And common sense and justice continue to be raped by idiots defending Polansky.

Dave Rywall on September 30, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Whoa!
Am I wrong? Or am I in agreement with DryWall?
Freaky!

Tom_OC on September 30, 2009 at 12:14 PM

I’m not asking for agreement. I’m posting here as a mirror to the people who are posting in the hopes of showing how morally superior they are. It seems as though some people here think that the more outraged they are at this issue, the more moral they are. I’m pointing out that being ‘outraged’ and wanting to put a person to death does not make you moral.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Nobody wants him put to death. One comment pointed out that that would be an example of revenge carried to the extreme, while facing justice would be the adult and responsible thing to do, something Polanski has not done, and the only way he could truly atone for his sin.

You’ve said that the victim has moved on (which I think is just her desire for privacy and putting on a brave front) and that Polanski has moved on (fled justice is more like it), therefore this should just be “forgiven and forgotten”. That is not how the justice system works. He pleaded guilty, so there is no statute of limitations.

alliebobbitt on September 30, 2009 at 12:14 PM

There were two (maybe three) criminals and the victim is protecting one of them.

1. Roman Polanski a sexual pervert and serial pedophile
2. The girl’s mother. She was at best a witless fool. No one let’s a 13 year old be with a man like Polanski without a chaperone. At worst she pimped her daughter to Polanski.
3. The woman at Jack Nicholson’s house who knew he was alone in a bedroom with a young girl and who should have demanded that he open the door. (She shouldn’t have let him in at all actually.)

aloysiusmiller on September 30, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Dave Rywall on September 30, 2009 at 12:12 PM

You have been awesome on this, thanks.

Cindy Munford on September 30, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Sorry for being late to the party but I do wish to pile on Ms Applebaum. I have a friend who quit her very respectable job to idulge herself as professional dominatrix. Her opinion about what Polanski did is simple: He is more of a pervert then consenting adults who show up for what she dishes out. If a dominatrix can understand the horror of the deed done by Polanski why can’t our cultural betters on the left figure it out?

And they call us “wingnuts”

jerryofva on September 30, 2009 at 12:16 PM

I don’t know what it is about Washington DC, but it’s not called “Hollywood for Ugly People” for a reason.

Both places just throw out all logic and common sense as part of being a member of the “in” crowd.

We need to throw the “in” crowd, out. Far out.

NoDonkey on September 30, 2009 at 12:16 PM

How would killing Polanski (as many people here think should happen even though he was only facing 45 days in jail initially) be justice?

Justice means a person who was wronged was made whole. Killing this guy is not going to take away the rape. He’s been exiled, he’s paid a fine, his victim has filed papers to DROP THE CHARGES.

Not enough. . . KILL HIM! is the moral cry. I weep for the soul of people. God should never have given mankind free will. He knew this was what people would do with it and he demonstrated it as well.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:56 AM

You are mistaking justice and mercy. Would it be just if Polanski never served any time? No, that would be terribly unjust. Justice is not served until there has been atonement for the crime and as far as I’m aware Polanski has never made any atonement. What you are calling for is mercy, and I agree that justice must be tempered with mercy. However mercy is usually predicated on contrition and Polanski has shown no contrition. So what riles us up is that many of the left and Hollywood elites are calling for us to ignore justice and make a mockery of mercy. Some people may call for his death in their histrionics, but I’m pretty sure most people would be satisfied is Polanski simply returned to serve his time as justice dictates.

As far as free will is concerned, God gave us free will so that we may freely choose to love Him. Because love that is not freely given is not true love. What you should lament is this: that the great majority of people freely choose to follow the enemy. It’s not God’s fault they abuse their free will.

Goldenavatar on September 30, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Anne Applebaum. Pig.

pabarge on September 30, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Please replace that picture with – like, anything else.

perroviejo on September 30, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Dave Rywall on September 30, 2009 at 12:12 PM
You have been awesome on this, thanks.

Cindy Munford on September 30, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Seconded

thomasaur on September 30, 2009 at 12:19 PM

When it says ‘thou shall not kill’, I think God means even through the government.
So we hire atheists as our hangmen. Problem solved.

Bishop on September 30, 2009 at 10:59 AM

OK, I lol’d. That was funny.

todler on September 30, 2009 at 12:20 PM

We can use this whole situation as a major weapon against the PC nazis and race-baiters. For now on, whenever a leftists says “Well it was 30 years ago, it doens’t matter now” just say “Well then can you shut the hell up about slavery, which ended over a 100 years ago?”. Let’s see what they have to say after that.

DethMetalCookieMonst on September 30, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Has there been any comments by NOW concerning this issue?

[Zaire67 on September 30, 2009 at 11:42 AM]

I’d say no, considering there is no press release wrt it on their website. I did a search for Polanski and it brought up one result on National Equity March for 11 Oct, which in the result’s synopsis is:

NOW Key Issues
Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child · Medicare for All: Yes We Can · more… change your address · add/change your chapter affiliation …
http://www.now.org/issues/

But in going to the press release, it says absolutely nothing on Polanski. It’s like they’re sending out subliminal messages or something. I’ll try Woody Allen and see if I get a result with, “Reminder: Woody Allen is an a$$.”

Dusty on September 30, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Gee. If I were Mike Tyson, I would be pissed off. Where were all these people when he was in jail serving for rape of a legal aged woman who actually climbed in bed with him, took him to the edge right to the limit in a pre intercourse scheme only to tell him no at the last second. WHat a bunch of hypocrits we have as mentors in this world. The people that own the cameras and saturate the airwaves in this world have a double standard second to none at all, from politics to criminality. They believe they are somehow all righteous and we , the people, are just ignorant uneducated fodder who should just shut the hell up and let them mentor our children. I say hollywood in general, big media in general, and the left political strain are complicit in an ever growing effort to control everything for thier own greedy self serving purpose. They absolve thier own from such atrocious acts as rape and sodomy and I just cant figure out what the hell that is all about? What purpose does that serve even to them? What do these morons owe this criminal in that they would risk their reputations to back him. How would they like it if somebody raped Obamas daughter? Somebody ask the ONE what he thinks about this situation. I want him on record. Maybe somebody needs to rape and sodomize Applebaum or one of her young relatives so she could understand what the hell this is about. No im not serious, but what the hell ius wrong with that woman?

CriticalUpdate on September 30, 2009 at 12:24 PM

I like that article Allah linked on this last night. Basically, would the Hollywood Left feel the same way if all other things were equal, but it was Father Polanski in the Catholic Church that committed the crime?

JamesLee on September 30, 2009 at 12:25 PM

NOW

At least the California NOW chapter seems to speaking up against Hollywood’s embrace of a rapist, in blog form if not an official statement:

http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2009/09/film-industry-polanksi-defenders-disappoint.html#more

Terry_Dyne on September 30, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Anyone who defends or excuses Polanski’s behavior is morally bankrupt and rotten to the core. That includes his now adult victim. She doesn’t want to reopen old wounds — and that’s understandable, if horrendously selfish — but this is not just about her anymore. It’s about her children and grandchildren. It’s about all would-be child rapists and their ability to thumb their noses at our laws when they’re caught.

starboardhelm on September 30, 2009 at 12:29 PM

[Dusty on September 30, 2009 at 12:22 PM]

Update: Nope no “Woody Allen is an a$$.” Actually nothing at all.

Hey but they were all over Huffington Post on the September 28th for a September 26th post:

September 28: Objectification of Women : Huffington Post: Obsessed with Chests

The Huffington Post exposes its tabloid side in this cheesy and insulting poll. Readers are invited to look at photos of women celebrities in which their breasts are prominently featured and then rate them on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is “gross” and 10 is “gorgeous”

Dusty on September 30, 2009 at 12:30 PM

I just do not understand how folks are just not getting it. It doesn’t even matter if this girl consented, which she clearly did not as the transcripts show. Remember the “To Catch A Predator” series with NBC’s Chris Hansen? Those girls posed online as willing participants and even in some cases, it can be argued that they egged on the perps. It doesn’t matter. They all went to jail and are forever filed as sexual offenders because they broke the law. The law states a 13 year old cannot consent. Period. We are a nation of laws. He committed rape. Period. HE GOES TO JAIL.

Opposite Day on September 30, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Basically, would the Hollywood Left feel the same way if all other things were equal, but if it was Father Polanski in the Catholic Church that committed the crime?

JamesLee on September 30, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Right on! Or Senator Polanski (R).

starboardhelm on September 30, 2009 at 12:32 PM

A 13 year old is incapable of giving consent, and Polanski pleaded guilty before hitting the wind. This is not even debatable. Lock his a$$ up in Chino and good riddance to this pervert.

DrW on September 30, 2009 at 12:33 PM

I imagine that somewhere is a written record of the presiding judge’s decision on what Polanski’s sentence was going to be. That’s what Polanski is going to have to face.

Then a new and separate trial for his flight which, it is reasonable, is covered in the law.

Liam on September 30, 2009 at 12:38 PM

actually..there are people posting on this thread right now who are pedophiles….yep….this is the BIG secret of American and world societies…children used as sexual objects….and to the person who stated that no one here wants polanski put to death..let me state clearly that i want him executed, along with all other child rapists…convicted of course in a court of law….of course the children didn’t get any say when they were being tortured/raped…karma is a bitch….pedophiles protect each other…just look at some of these postings

JJKRN on September 30, 2009 at 12:39 PM

there are people posting on this thread right now that are pedophiles….they support and protect each other

JJKRN on September 30, 2009 at 12:42 PM

what an idiot!
time for the pink slip

cmsinaz on September 30, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Why would it come as a surprise to anyone that liberals support rape?

That’s the definition of liberalism: imposing your love on people who don’t want it.

logis on September 30, 2009 at 12:52 PM

there are people posting on this thread right now that are pedophiles….they support and protect each other

JJKRN on September 30, 2009 at 12:42 PM

I agree…it becomes rather obvious, their obsession with excusing his behavior is creeeepy.
However, as we found out about Foley, you can be in public against something, but behind closed doors….

right2bright on September 30, 2009 at 12:53 PM

The far left is very evil.

Johan Klaus on September 30, 2009 at 12:57 PM

A thirteen year old cannot legally consent to having sex, period. I was going to suggest that Anne Applebaum needs to shut up before she reveals any more ignorance, but it seems like it’s too late. She should get a divorce, skulk away and change her name.

flataffect on September 30, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Maybe I’ve missed it, but aren’t there two crimes here for which there is no known reasonable excuse.

1. Polanski fled the jurisdiction to avoid a sentencing hearing. Crime 1.

2. Polanski was not drunk or otherwise incapacitated. (I’m not saying that being drunk or otherwise incapacitated might or might not be a defense. If it were a potential defense, there is evidence to support it.) Polanski knew the girl was under 18. So, even if the mother said it was OK and even if the girl said and actually meant, “Oh, Roman, do with me anything that you want, and I mean anything,” Polanski knowingly committed the strict liability crime of statutory rape. Crime 2.

So, all of the rationalizations of Applebaum and her ilk are IRRELEVANT.

Ira on September 30, 2009 at 1:03 PM

I think if Ms. Applebaum is so sure Polanski is such a nice man, why doesn’t she star in a reenactment with someone she doesn’t know and just wants to use her.

The morning after she can write down her feelings about his “feelings”.

I have no interest in volunteering, either.

Harry Schell on September 30, 2009 at 1:05 PM

I cannot believe that Anne Applebaum finds the grand jury testimony to be exculpative.

How many times must a 13 year old girl say “no”, “stop” and “I want to go home” before she has manifested her non-consent to sexual activity?

What is not “straightforward” about any of that?

By effectively pardoning (through non-action by the state and its prosecutors and judicial system) someone for staying on the lam successfully for 30+ years, we incentivise criminals to dodge prosecution until they reach a ripe old age and are forgiven by the state.

I guess the FBI should give Whitey Bulger the “coast is clear” sign so he can come home and live out the remainder of his senior years in Boston.

molonlabe28 on September 30, 2009 at 1:12 PM

She’s “ugly” on the inside, too!

elderberry on September 30, 2009 at 1:16 PM

The far left is very evil.

Johan Klaus on September 30, 2009 at 12:57 PM

As noted, their are some “right” that are right with them…a couple have posted on here.

right2bright on September 30, 2009 at 1:17 PM

If only Polanski would come out and criticize Obamacare, liberals would finally realize how thoroughly evil he is.

Sharke on September 30, 2009 at 1:23 PM

It’s been stated time and again, but a 13 year can’t give consent. Whether or not consent was given by her is irrelevant.

TexasDude on September 30, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Waterboarding a terrorist who has information that could save innocent lives: EVIL! BRUTAL TORTURE!
Raping a defenseless 13 year old child: meh, whatever.

We really need to stop going to the movies and starve these evil b’stards out of existence.

Sharke on September 30, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Hey Applebaum, apply some anal balm and jam a qualude or two while you are at it, you twisted licentious malignancy.

Geochelone on September 30, 2009 at 1:31 PM

I’m pointing out that being ‘outraged’ and wanting to put a person to death does not make you moral.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Let me point out that claiming to be “moral enough to be against the death penalty” sure as sh!t doesn’t make you moral. Neither does being outraged at the outrage.

Stop with the “he’s been exiled” claim. The degenerate went on the lam. That’s just a wee bit different than being exiled.

Don’t waste tears weeping for my soul. I ain’t a believer in the hereafter. Weep for yourself Mr. Self-Righteous.

Gang-of-One on September 30, 2009 at 1:33 PM

It was Bush’s fault

The Notorious G.O.P on September 30, 2009 at 1:36 PM

A pound of flesh is good for the soul.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM

As an unrepentant heathen I’ll buy that.

As an unrepentant heathen with 12 years of Catholic education I’d have no problem with crucifying pedophile priest.

I know, I know, you’re outraged. Weep.

Gang-of-One on September 30, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Letter writers to Le Point scorned Les People as the “crypto-intelligentsia of our country” who deliver “eloquent phrases that defy common sense.”

Lotta that goin’ around lately…

Jim Treacher on September 30, 2009 at 1:59 PM

A lot of people are terribly confused by this entire story, but I would assert that this is the roots of sexism showing.

I am not surprised. This explains the odd disparity when women run for office and the discussion is about their looks or their pantsuits.

It’s really no mystery.

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Basically, would the Hollywood Left feel the same way if all other things were equal, but if it was Father Polanski in the Catholic Church that committed the crime?

JamesLee on September 30, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Basically, would the Catholic Right feel the same way if a Cardinal shuttled around multiple child rapists and molesters… and then was protected from prosecution by the Pope and given a cushy job while still functioning as a Prince of the Church at the highest levels?

You can be angry with Woody Allen all you want (and rightly so), but Cardinal Law protected countless rapists and molesters… enabled them to do it… and was protected from US law by the Vatican which took him to Rome and gave him a comfy chair as his punishment… safely away from prosecution.

If you’re gonna raise the “if Polanski was a priest” I’ll continue to raise, “if Woody Allen was a cardinal or the Pope.”

mankai on September 30, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Did he actually say everyone wants to do 13-year-olds?

Jeesh, I thought part of his plea bargain was that he would have psychological analysis. The guy is clearly a pedophile. Wonder how many kids he’s done in the last 30 years.

justincase on September 30, 2009 at 11:11 AM

In a manner of speaking, yes.

cheeflo on September 30, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Interestingly enough, in the transcript, Samantha Gailey says that the woman at Jack Nicholson’s house had long black hair. It just so happens that he was with Angelica Huston around that time.

Sultry Beauty on September 30, 2009 at 2:17 PM

I doubt he’s repeated his actions. I think this was a particularly sordid story, located in time and place.

But, the issue to me, is his fugitive status. He can meet his own conscience on what happened. He may have made true amends to her. We don’t know.

But he is a fugitive. Hollywood is wrong on this issue.

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 2:17 PM

I’m pointing out that being ‘outraged’ and wanting to put a person to death does not make you moral.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Good point… if anyone was actually making that argument. However, wanting justice for someone, anyone, who raped a child, fled justice, and has shown no remorse is not a symptom of “self-righteousness” but of any civil society.

Do you suggest we open the prison doors lest we ever have an inkling that we might be punishing criminals for “moral “reasons”?

mankai on September 30, 2009 at 2:19 PM

I doubt he’s repeated his actions. I think this was a particularly sordid story, located in time and place.

Nastassja Kinski

Religious_Zealot on September 30, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Well, if he repeated it, present evidence.

His wife had just been murdered, hideously. He was part of the Hollywood drug scene.

Is he a traditional pedophile?

I personally doubt it. I think it was a crime located in time and place.

No excuse. But this is a real challenge. Do we respect plea bargains? Or not.

Or do we throw them out like Obama is trying to do with the last administration and prosecute in hindsight?

I come down firmly on the side of legal agreements must stand.

We are a nation that respects that law is fluid.

I feel bound by that.

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 2:34 PM

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 2:17 PM
“I doubt he’s repeated his actions..”

And you would be mistaken. He has continued predations on girls, some obscure, and some less so, such as Nastassja Kinski.

SarahW on September 30, 2009 at 2:49 PM

AnninCA, the man is a twisted little rat. http://tiny.cc/dm3gu

SarahW on September 30, 2009 at 2:51 PM

After two days of widespread expressions of support for jailed filmmaker Roman Polanski, from European political leaders as well as leading cultural figures there and in the United States, the mood was shifting among French politicians Tuesday about whether the government should have rushed to rally around the Oscar-winning director.

What is really sad is that the mood is shifting in response to political fallout.

Vashta.Nerada on September 30, 2009 at 10:20 AM

It’s as if hell’s opened up and all the dancers-with-the-devil are up here campaigning for condemnation. It’s truly a spiritual condemnation of decency from a spiritually and psychologically corrupt group of people.

You know, well, God’s Word is correct again: “many are called but few are chosen.”

God says that many will “fall away” because salvation / faith / belief is just too hard for many, “requires too much sacrifice” and chaaange.

Lourdes on September 30, 2009 at 2:52 PM

here is the girl at the age Polanski harmed her. Look 18 to you? She doesn’t look even 14 to me. She looks like a 13 year old. But you be the judge.

SarahW on September 30, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Emmanuelle Segner his wife was also very young.

He also seems to have bragged about “doing” low aged (high?) school kids in Switzerland in his autobiography.

I think people need to cut her mother some slack. What she did may have been mis-judged, but you’re suggesting that 44 year old males shouldn’t be left alone with young girls. I still think 99% of men are nice people. I don’t want to get to a position where we think every man is a rapist. Which is precisely why he needs to get his just deserts.

Also when you read the grand jury testimony, it ressembles what we call “grooming” today. The guy was very careful to make the mother think everything was ok. I mean how many people would put down the phone and think “he’s now going to rape her”. I think most normal people would have been reassured about him phoning.

I have worked with Roman Polanski, it’s a strange feeling. I had no idea at the time (Valmont), what he had been accused of.

Hope on September 30, 2009 at 2:56 PM

How anyone can defend this piece of dirt is beyond me. I don’t care if her mother gave Polanski permission to rape her daughter and if the victim also agreed to be raped. It is STILL rape (yes Whoopi, I mean “rape rape”) when the child is 13 years old.

katablog.com on September 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Yes, exactly. It’s on Polanski and anyone who acts similarly, terribly. He opted to chose, intentionally, cravenly, to abandon reason, responsibility, compassion, caring, just about anything and everything that makes for a human of adult age and perspective. It’s on Polanski’s head and nothing any of his helpers can write or say is ever going to change that. Polanski’s guilty, he needs to pay the price for his sick behaviors as professed and judged.

Lourdes on September 30, 2009 at 2:56 PM

With all due respect to the victim’s mother, had that been my wife on the other end of the phone, there would have been no “Do you want me to pick you up?” – it would have been “I’m on my way”.

Then the mother lion would have torn the weasels into shreds when she got there.

If that was me on the phone, I would have been so pissed, I would probably wrap my car around a tree on the way over.

I just can’t imagine a lifestyle where that conversation takes place. 13 year old into a hot tub with a 44 year old Hollyweirdo… What could go wrong?

reaganaut on September 30, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Anne Applebaum is a moral idiot. She wrote a well received book on the Soviet Gulag. I was considering reading it, but with her depraved attitude, I can’t be sure she doesn’t see the victims of the Gulag as somehow responsible for their own destruction.

vilebody on September 30, 2009 at 2:59 PM

I don’t know if it’s been mentioned on this thread but a guest on the Hugh Hewitt show had a great point:

Hollywood is quick to forgive Polanski for raping a 13 year old girl but they still won’t forgive Elia Kazan for testifying before the House during the McCarthy hearings.

That speaks volumes about the “values” of Hollywood. Also, Woody Allen on petition to forgive inappropriate acts with a minor? Wow. They should’ve said “Thanks but no thanks, Woodman. We’ll run this one without you.”

Django on September 30, 2009 at 3:04 PM

Applebaum crosses the line into some despicable territory here. She argues that once someone gets into a jacuzzi, regardless of their protestations and their refusals, that a girl is fair game for a rapist no matter what her age.

I guess now Applebaum will also champion the rapists who defend themselves based on the length of the skirt and the plunge of the neckline.
/sarc

normschaef on September 30, 2009 at 3:07 PM

Of course the man is lower than scum.But remember this, the SAME morons that make little films about their fealty to Obama, are cut from the same cloth as these morons defending a child molester. It’s all Hollywood SCUM.

Jeff from WI on September 30, 2009 at 3:07 PM

I just can’t imagine a lifestyle where that conversation takes place. 13 year old into a hot tub with a 44 year old Hollyweirdo… What could go wrong?

reaganaut on September 30, 2009 at 2:58 PM

There was never any mention of a hot tub, and the shoot was supposed to take place somewhere else. Yes she should have been there, but remember people like Polanski are very good at this. They know how to manipulate women to get at their children.

SOmething like this happened to me once, I was an adult, and the guy was vetted by my partner, who is very experienced in the industry, and the guy fooled both of us. Luckily he wasn’t dangerous, just deluding himself. But I found myself in his bathroom, changing clothes into things he wanted thinking what the f**ck am I doing? I was very lucky that day because the guy was perfectly plausible.

Hope on September 30, 2009 at 3:12 PM

But would this activity constitute rape in Durham, N.C. if she were black and the perp was a privileged white male?

molonlabe28 on September 30, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Is he a traditional pedophile?

I personally doubt it. I think it was a crime located in time and place.

You’re wrong. He is a traditional child molester-whatever that means-he molested a child.

Please, tell me of one crime ever committed that wasn’t located in time and place.

Gang-of-One on September 30, 2009 at 3:22 PM

“Basically, would the Catholic Right feel the same way if a Cardinal shuttled around multiple child rapists and molesters… and then was protected from prosecution by the Pope and given a cushy job while still functioning as a Prince of the Church at the highest levels?”

Uhmmm, yeah, you P.O.S!

It was the left and it’s ideas of psychotherapy and talking it out that helped convince the Catholic Church is was best to council it’s own instead of getting them thrown behind bars. Couple that with the left’s rejection of traditional Church values and you have a Church leadership that was attempting to put the best light a very bad situation and dust everything under the rug.

I have a close friend who was plied with alcohol and molested by a Dallas Catholic priest and I am STILL a practicing Catholic.

And, yes, I would be considered of the right view politically!

TexasDude on September 30, 2009 at 3:27 PM

A lot of people are terribly confused by this entire story, but I would assert that this is the roots of sexism showing.

I am not surprised. This explains the odd disparity when women run for office and the discussion is about their looks or their pantsuits.

It’s really no mystery.

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 2:09 PM

and, again . . .

I doubt he’s repeated his actions. I think this was a particularly sordid story, located in time and place.

But, the issue to me, is his fugitive status. He can meet his own conscience on what happened. He may have made true amends to her. We don’t know.

But he is a fugitive. Hollywood is wrong on this issue.

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Honestly, do you even think a little before you write this sort of minimizing drivel?

He intentionally drugged, raped and then sodomized a 13-year old young girl. The only concern he expressed throughout was whether there was a risk she would become pregnant.

Read the transcript!

What the hell does this have to do with candidates wearing pantsuits?

And what basis do you have for doubting that he “repeated” his actions? Because that is what you want to believe, and, therefore, it must never have happened? How about prior behavior?

Plus, what basis do you have for raising the canard about him possibly having “made true amends to her?” I’m curious. What might “true amends” have been in your mind?

Finally, is there a “special place” in your mind where the deliquescence of harsh, factual realities takes place? Is it a filter of sorts, one that simply screens out the bad things of life, so you needn’t take them into consideration in expressing your views?

Trochilus on September 30, 2009 at 3:31 PM

“Could someone explain to me why this case is still prosecutable. Isn’t there a Statute of Limitations?”

This piece of offal has already been convicted. He ran before sentencing, and now faces other charges related to bail jumping. There has been an active warrant for his arrest for absconding. There is no Statute of Limitations on serving a sentence if you abscond before serving your time.

hopefloats on September 30, 2009 at 3:32 PM

But I am moral enough to be against the death penalty. When it says ‘thou shall not kill’, I think God means even through the government.

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Then you’re going to have trouble with the verse that says, Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.”

For my part, I am moral enough to believe in justice. Which, in the Bible, certainly does include the death penalty.

tom on September 30, 2009 at 3:33 PM

But, hey cares about Catholocism when we have non-religious women teachers in secular public school month in and month out molesting children?

TexasDude on September 30, 2009 at 3:33 PM

Trochilus on September 30, 2009 at 3:31 PM

Well said. I hope you’re not expecting a coherent reply from IT. We’ve never gotten one before.

Geochelone on September 30, 2009 at 3:44 PM

His wife had just been murdered, hideously
AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 2:34 PM

The daughter of Leno and Rosemary Labianca, Suzan Leberge (murdered by the Manson family the night after the Tate Murders) has begged forgiveness and a release from jail for Tex Watson.

She in later years pops up as a Christian, and forgives Charles “Tex” Watson publicly at one parole hearing which Doris Tate attended. Doris went to speak against Watson’s release. Suzan pops up and declares she forgives him and he should be let out. (under the same law that lets victims family speak at parole hearings, usually against letting the people out, she could attend and speak for his release)

It is ironic that many people defending the child rapist Polanski with the line “she has forgiven him and wants to move on” could also be applied to the very people that killed Polanski’s wife.
Leno and Rosemary are not here to make a comment, but their own daughter has forgiven the prime killer and wants him set free.

If liberals want to be consistent in their belief that we should move on and not enforce the law because the victim forgives them, then shouldn’t they also be for letting the Tate/Labianca’s murderer go because the daughter of the existing family wants them set free to move on.

Tex Watson is old,
has not committed any felonies since,
is no more dangerous now to society than Polanski,
and has been forgiven by existing family.

Liberal pretzel logic at it’s best.

Baxter Greene on September 30, 2009 at 3:46 PM

Well, if he repeated it, present evidence.

And yet again I say:

Nastassja Kinski.

But thanks for playing!

Religious_Zealot on September 30, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Liberal feminist: blah-blah-blah my body- abortion ok blah-blah-blah rape of a 13 yr-old by a fellow liberal ok blah blah blah

DCJeff on September 30, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Prior to raping the 13 year old, Polanski days prior, had taken semi-nude pictures of the girl. It’s not much of step to get her to go further.

On the day of the rape, she was give champaigne and posed with the drink/glass for more pictures. There was an unknown woman who helped facilitate the rape at Jack Nickolas’ residence. She gave the girl the drink and left the two supposed love bird alone for more semi-nude pictures. Polanksi had requested the 13 year old to take off her shirt and pose for more pictures. She complied.

She testified that after taking pictures with no shirt, Polanski directed her to a jacuzzi and told her that he wanted to take pictures of her in it. By this time, she was clothed in a blue dress. Polanski then gave her a pill, a quaalude, and she testified that she is not sure exactly how much she drank.

All this is courtroom testimony.

It is public record with the smoking gun providing it.

Polanksi pled guilty to have sex with a minor, statutory rape.

A 13 year can’t give consent and no one can give consent when plied with alcohol and passed out on drugs.

No matter how you slice it, it was rape and it is disgusting we have people not only apologizing for Polanski, but making excuses for him.

He didn’t face his punishment, he fled. He KNEW he did wrong and the ONLY option he could deal with was running away.

It’s about time he faced the consequences of his actions!

TexasDude on September 30, 2009 at 3:55 PM

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 2:34 PM

You wrote that Polanski’s wife “had just been murdered, hideously.” True, she was murdered hideously, but that was EIGHT YEARS earlier. And no matter when Sharon Tate had been murdered, how does that offer an excuse — moral or legal — for Polanski’s forcible rape of a 13 year old girl? Are you playing the role of a public defender, making sure some sort of due process is followed in our discussion of Polanski’s guilt, or do you seriously believe he is the victim of injustice, as Applebaum claims?

jwolf on September 30, 2009 at 3:58 PM

Polanski has had his due process. He was found guilty. He admitted to being guilty. It is the punishment phase that he ran away from.

TexasDude on September 30, 2009 at 4:01 PM

Religious_Zealot on September 30, 2009 at 3:47 PM

There has been quite a bit of evidence starting to bubble up to show that Polanski continued his predatory practices toward young girls.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaeldeacon/100011795/roman-polanski-everyone-else-fancies-little-girls-too/#

Here’s a section of the first quote it contains from Polanski.


“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”

Thirty years have passed since Polanski said those words, so he’s had time to reconsider them. Whether he’s actually done so, we don’t yet know. Perhaps he still thinks it’s true that everyone fancies little girls, and that the press was exaggerating the enormity of his crime, and that all this somehow excuses his behaviour.

Yes, of course in Polanski’s world everybody wants to f–k
young girls.

absolutely sick.

Baxter Greene on September 30, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Apparently Geimer (the real victim) struck a plea deal because the publicity and hounding by the press was tearing her up.Not because she”forgave Polanski”:


Victim: Courts did more harm than Polanski

September 29, 2009 — Updated 2003 GMT (0403 HKT
CNN

“The fallout was worse than what had happened that night,” she told People. “It was on the evening news every night. Reporters and photographers came to my school and put my picture in a European tabloid with the caption Little Lolita. They were all saying, ‘Poor Roman Polanski, entrapped by a 13-year-old temptress.’ I had a good friend who came from a good Catholic family, and her father wouldn’t let her come to my house anymore.”

Against that backdrop, the plea deal was struck.

Afterward, Geimer shut down emotionally and rebelled, she told People on the 20th anniversary of the crime.

Geimer also knows that Polanski committed a terrible crime.

“Looking back, there can be no question that he did something awful. It was a terrible thing to do to a young girl,” she wrote in her Los Angeles Times piece. “And honestly, the publicity surrounding it was so traumatic that what he did to me seemed to pale in comparison.”

This is a woman who was drugged and raped but just wants the whole thing to go away.
The idea that she plea bargained and is “supporting” dropping the charges as some kind of support for Polanski is wrong.
She just wants this to all go away so she can get on with her life.

Big difference.

Baxter Greene on September 30, 2009 at 4:23 PM

| Trochilus on September 30, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Well said. I hope you’re not expecting a coherent reply from IT. We’ve never gotten one before.

Geochelone on September 30, 2009 at 3:44 PM

No, I’m not even expecting any reply, let alone a coherent one! The special place in her mind will work its “magic.”

The puzzling thing is that there is some sort of back story here that is missing so far from the public discussion. Suddenly, after all these years, he is arrested and subject to extradition?

The victim publicly expressed her desire to have him allowed to return, and get off on any further punishment long ago — over a decade ago. Who knows what may have motivated that? A big monetary settlement? That was probably at least a part of it. An enterprising reporter would have questioned her on that, but none have to my knowledge.

But suddenly this new arrest occurs, and he will likely be extradited. Did a key judge retire? Or a key prosecutor? Is the DOJ somehow involved behind the scenes?

Trochilus on September 30, 2009 at 4:26 PM

This is a woman who was drugged and raped but just wants the whole thing to go away.
The idea that she plea bargained and is “supporting” dropping the charges as some kind of support for Polanski is wrong.
She just wants this to all go away so she can get on with her life.

Big difference.

Baxter Greene on September 30, 2009 at 4:23 PM

And I can think of a way this could have all gone away for her a long time ago, instead of dragging it out for decades.

exception on September 30, 2009 at 4:28 PM

But suddenly this new arrest occurs, and he will likely be extradited. Did a key judge retire? Or a key prosecutor? Is the DOJ somehow involved behind the scenes?

Trochilus on September 30, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Or just a border crossing known well enough in advance to get the paperwork done.

exception on September 30, 2009 at 4:30 PM

So if it’s okay for such an act to occur on a 13-year old, what’s the cutoff? Ten, eight, maybe seven? These people are idiots.

pjean on September 30, 2009 at 5:05 PM

Or just a border crossing known well enough in advance to get the paperwork done.

exception on September 30, 2009 at 4:30 PM

No, not “just” . . . according to reports, he had crossed the Swiss border previously, without consequence.

Flagging a fugitive does not require advance paperwork.

But a quiet diplomatic agreement in advance between countries could certainly prompt the sudden “snag” of a long-standing fugitive, even one who had freely traveled back and forth amongst certain jurisdictions with relative impunity, for many, many years.

I am just suggesting that there is likely some sort of back story we are as yet unaware of with regard to this. And we may not see the consequences fully played out until he appears in court for sentencing.

Trochilus on September 30, 2009 at 5:12 PM

And common sense and justice continue to be raped by idiots defending Polansky.

Dave Rywall on September 30, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Every now and then you redeem yourself, Dave. Way to keep them guessing.

Jaibones on September 30, 2009 at 5:29 PM

Well, if he repeated it, present evidence.

His wife had just been murdered, hideously. He was part of the Hollywood drug scene.

Is he a traditional pedophile?

I personally doubt it. I think it was a crime located in time and place.

No excuse. But this is a real challenge. Do we respect plea bargains? Or not.

Or do we throw them out like Obama is trying to do with the last administration and prosecute in hindsight?

I come down firmly on the side of legal agreements must stand.

We are a nation that respects that law is fluid.

I feel bound by that.

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 2:34 PM

You, however, seem to be an imbecile. You refuse to acknowledge facts that do not support your “feelings”; you make up psychobabble to rationalize your “feelings”; and you refuse to learn the known facts of the case.

He plea bargained down from rape, sodomy and contributing to the delinquency of a minor to statutory rape. He committed statutory rape (Kinssky) again within a few years with a 15 year old. And he fled jurisdiction and refused sentencing after his guilty plea.

So…WTF case are you talking about?

Jaibones on September 30, 2009 at 5:38 PM

I read the victims testimony and she mentions a woman that had shown up and even interrupted the rape at one point by knocking on the door. This woman saw the victim leave the house shotly after. Who was this woman?

Daemonocracy on September 30, 2009 at 6:12 PM

Daemonocracy on September 30, 2009 at 6:12 PM

That’s irrelevant. The trial is over. This is a sentencing issue.

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 6:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4