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

So…WTF case are you talking about?

Jaibones on September 30, 2009 at 5:38 PM

The case where a plea bargain was reached and approved.

Does this mean nothing? I’m not taking a side here. It doesn’t, fine.

But then, don’t expect ANY case to be plea bargained. The State’s word is either real or not.

Our choice, I guess.

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 6:19 PM

BTW, do realize that taking the position that the State was awful to offer him this plea bargain will open a HUGE can of worms.

There are many murderers offered similar plea deals.

Boy, this thread could last forever.

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 6:25 PM

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 6:19 PM

Judges are not bound by plea deals reached by prosecutors and defense counsel. While it is unusual for them to not go along it is not unheard of. Personally I find plea deals repugnant in cases like this.

thomasaur on September 30, 2009 at 6:33 PM

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

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 6:17 PM

I don’t give a damn about a trial, he already plead guilty. I’m asking WHO the Woman was because I want to know.

Daemonocracy on September 30, 2009 at 6:34 PM

Judges are not bound by plea deals reached by prosecutors and defense counsel. While it is unusual for them to not go along it is not unheard of. Personally I find plea deals repugnant in cases like this.

thomasaur on September 30, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Well, then, that means no plea bargain is worth the paper it’s written on.

Whoa nelly, I say. We survive off of these unsavory deals.

That’s the truth.

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 6:38 PM

I don’t give a damn about a trial, he already plead guilty. I’m asking WHO the Woman was because I want to know.

Daemonocracy on September 30, 2009 at 6:34 PM

What do you want to know? She’s been accessible to the press. She formally requested that the charges be dropped several years ago.

She’s stated repeated she’d like to see the case dropped. She personally has 3 kids and has moved on.

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 6:39 PM

Well, then, that means no plea bargain is worth the paper it’s written on.

Whoa nelly, I say. We survive off of these unsavory deals.

That’s the truth.

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 6:38 PM

It sounds like you aren’t familiar with the plea.

exception on September 30, 2009 at 6:53 PM

She’s stated repeated she’d like to see the case dropped. She personally has 3 kids and has moved on.

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 6:39 PM

Still working hard defending the child rapist, eh?

A prosecution would be for the next 13 year-old, and for the next lecherous old bastard who thinks he can get away with something like this because he’s famous. And because people like you think we should just “move on.”

evergreen on September 30, 2009 at 7:09 PM

I don’t care if the 13 year old stripped naked, and begged Polanski to screw her. I don’t care if the mother dropped the daughter off and didn’t care if Polanski had his way with her daughter. I don’t care if the mother dropped her off, and took payment for her daughter to have sex with Polanski.

IT IS ILLEGAL to have sex with a minor. It is called statutory rape for a reason. They do not have the legal right to willingly submit to sex with an adult, and parents are not allowed to prostitute out their children.

The law is there to PROTECT children from adult predators. Which is exactly what Polanski was. It doesn’t matter how rich or talented or successful he is/was.

A pedophile is a pedophile is a pedophile. And a parent that willingly allows their child to be a victim of pedophilia is guilty as well.

The arguments pro-Polanski people are making are ridiculous and irrelevant.

The laws are to protect CHILDREN. She could have been a huge slut who slept with 50 boys – that is irrelevant.

A grown adult who engages in sex with a child is a pedophile. Just ask Mary Kay Letourneau.

sarainitaly on September 30, 2009 at 7:27 PM

Plus, he is a fugitive.

sarainitaly on September 30, 2009 at 7:28 PM

. . .
Boy, this thread could last forever.

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 6:25 PM

Right along with your ridiculous viewpoints.

Just because someone is offered a “plea” deal does not mean a judge has to accept it.

Trochilus on September 30, 2009 at 7:40 PM

In both countries, sympathy for a child rapist seems isolated to the entertainment elite and the media sycophants who love them.

Thank God for that much; at least the common rabble isn’t without morals.

disa on September 30, 2009 at 7:42 PM

The law is there to PROTECT children from adult predators.

You don’t get it – Hollywood is about corrupting innocence. So of course they must defend the defiler.

disa on September 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM

Well, then, that means no plea bargain is worth the paper it’s written on.

Whoa nelly, I say. We survive off of these unsavory deals.

That’s the truth.

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 6:38 PM

Your problem is that you are not only wrong, but you are also ignorant of what happened.

As for my point, above (Trochilus on September 30, 2009 at 7:40 PM) please at least read the transcript of the court hearing at this page and at this page.

As a matter of fact, why not read the whole thing, AnninCA?

That way, you could at least comment without also making it clear that you have no idea what you are talking about!

Now, given what many of us perceive as a demonstrable lack of judgment, based on many, many prior comments, you’ll still be likely to be wrong.

But that won’t be combined with and/or exascerbated by complete ignorance of the facts.

Trochilus on September 30, 2009 at 8:48 PM

What do you want to know? She’s been accessible to the press. She formally requested that the charges be dropped several years ago.

She’s stated repeated she’d like to see the case dropped. She personally has 3 kids and has moved on.

AnninCA on September 30, 2009 at 6:39 PM

Are you even reading what I am writing? In reading the testimony, there was a 3rd person present, a Woman. I am wondering who this woman is. If you have no answer then don’t reply to my posts.

Does anyone know if the identity of the woman who was present in the house while the rape took place? I am curious if she has ever commented on the incident and if she is a big player in Hollywood.

Reading that testimony is sickening. As he was sodomizing the girl a woman knocked on the door and he went to open it. The victim put her underwear back on and walked to the door trying to get away but Polanski told the woman at the door to go away, closed the door and then once again removed the victims underwear and continued to sodomize her until he reached climax. Satisfied, he finally let the victim go and she rushed out the door and actually ran into this woman in the next room who said “Hello” to her. Did this woman not think anything was peculiar about the whole situation? I am curious to know.

Daemonocracy on September 30, 2009 at 9:09 PM

Daemonocracy on September 30, 2009 at 9:09 PM

I agree. If it was just a housekeeper that would be one thing.

But if it was a “Hollywood player” that would be quite another! She was a key witness tying him to the time and place.

As I read the transcript, it is a little vague, but there may have been two women there.

Whoever the first woman was, she was the one who said it was okay to open the champagne — to give to an obviously underage girl. And she even drank a half a glass with them. She was also casually conversing with Polanski about the last time he had visited, saying that she was fixing up a room for the next time he came to stay for a while.

That doesn’t sound like a housekeeper to me!

Near the end of the transcript, the woman who knocked on the door and thereby interrupted the rape, called out to him by his first name — “Roman, are you in there?” the girl quoted her as saying.

How unlikely is it that a housekeeper or other servant would have addressed him in that way — by first name?

And whoever she was, she spoke to the girl when left to go out to the car, asking the girl, “Are you the girl Roman is taking pictures of?

That is why it seems a bit confusing as to whether there was one woman or two. If it was the same woman that they had opened the champagne with earlier, wouldn’t she have immediately recognized the girl? Maybe she didn’t recognize her in a different outfit?

The prosecutor, by the way knew exactly who that woman was because in the transcript it specifically recites that they showed the girl an 8×10 photo, and asked if that was the woman who was there when she left the house. The transcript recites that the girl positively identified her as that person.

Trochilus on September 30, 2009 at 10:12 PM

The Elitist, Hollywood defense of RoPo has political implications that should and will be exploited.

Molon Labe on September 30, 2009 at 11:42 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

Exactly,
Polanski could have accepted his punishment for the crime he committed instead of running away to be a propped up pedophile rapist in the liberal arts community.

Baxter Greene on October 1, 2009 at 1:23 AM

In other words, the vast majority of French people feel the same way about Polanski as the vast majority of Americans.

Buddy, you write a blog. Take a step back, a look in the mirror and ask yourself – do you really speak for the ‘vast majority’ of French or American people?

Now – breathe.

Anders on October 1, 2009 at 2:02 AM

I tipped you to the Applebaum article too, in one of the early comment on your original post.

Wouldn’t it be nice if you had acknowledged that?

Anders on October 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM

If this 6 year old boy had survived, would their be as many defenders for the rapists as there have been for the rapist Polanski?

Oh, and where does the consensual part begin? When the boy voluntarily went into the devil’s den trailer or when the boy was almost dead?

You know, drugs and alcohol can be a deadly mix, would these apologists of the perverse, disgusting Polanski be stil with him if the 13 year old girl had overdosed?

You know, rape is rape no matter if the victim is passed out or bound. Rape is rape no matter if the victim is dead or still alive. Rape is rape no matter if the victim is 6 or 13.

How in the world can anyone, with any amount of sincerety, defend Polanski?

Sep 30, 8:29 PM EDT

Ga. prosecutor: Boy, 6, begged his killers to stop

By RUSS BYNUM
Associated Press Writer

By RUSS BYNUM
Associated Press Writer

AP Photo/Will Dickey

Advertisement

Buy AP Photo Reprints

Your Questions Answered

Ask AP: Wind power and wildlife, jobless benefits

BRUNSWICK, Ga. (AP) — Jurors in a Georgia courtroom Wednesday heard a horrific videotaped confession from a man who admitted he and his adult son stripped, sexually assaulted and strangled a 6-year-old boy inside a mobile home as the child pleaded with them to stop.

“He said ‘I’m going to tell my daddy and my grandma,’ and George choked him,” 61-year-old David Edenfield said in the videotape, referring to his son, 34-year-old George Edenfield. David Edenfield later admitted helping strangle the boy.

The jailhouse interview filmed by police was shown during the first day of testimony in the trial of the elder Edenfield, who faces the death penalty if convicted of the March 2007 slaying of Christopher Michael Barrios. The boy was missing for a week before police found his naked body dumped off a road and wrapped in trash bags.

Prosecutor John B. Johnson told jurors in his opening statement that Edenfield and his son lured the boy into their trailer across the street from the home of Christopher’s grandmother, then took turns molesting him.

“You will hear him say this from his own mouth,” Johnson said of David Edenfield. “Christopher Barrios didn’t want to be there. He said, ‘Let me go! Please don’t do this! I’m going to tell my parents!’”

David Edenfield is the first suspect to stand trial in the slaying. His son and wife, Peggy Edenfield, have also been charged with molesting and killing the boy, then hiding his body. The jury was selected from residents some 90 miles away because of pretrial publicity, and the jurors are being sequestered in Brunswick.

Jurors later saw the first hour of the interview the elder Edenfield gave to a police detective a day after the boy’s body was found. He at first blamed his son and denied any involvement, but slowly began to describe a horrible scene.

Edenfield said he and his wife watched while his son forced the boy to have sex.

Edenfield later admitted touching Christopher himself after Glynn County police detective Raymond Sarro showed him photographs of the boy’s dead body. He said the child had been crying and pleading for them to stop.

Edenfield at first said he told his son to stop choking Christopher, then changed his story. He said he placed his own hands on top of his son’s while they strangled the boy. Asked why he did that, Edenfield said, “I guess instinct.”

“You saw your opportunity, when George was choking him, to see what it felt like?” Sarro asked.

“Yes, sir.”

Defense attorney James Yancey Jr. told jurors the elder Edenfield’s confession was influenced by the police interrogators, but stopped short of telling jurors he was coerced.

Superior Court Judge Stephen Scarlett recessed court before Edenfield’s attorneys had a chance to cross-examine Sarro. The detective was to return to the witness stand Thursday.

Christopher lived in a mobile home park in the port city of Brunswick, about 60 miles south of Savannah, where his father and grandmother had separate homes. He would pass the Edenfields’ trailer when walking between them.

A shy boy with a big smile that showed off the silver caps on his front teeth, he loved superheroes such as Batman and Spider-Man.

The Edenfields moved into the mobile home park where the boy lived just a few months before his death. The family had been forced to move because George Edenfield was a convicted child molester. The family’s previous home was close to a playground, a violation of Georgia’s sex offender registry law.

Sarro testified police found Christopher’s toy Star Wars lightsaber in the Edenfields’ yard a few hours after the boy went missing. He said he then noticed the Edenfields peeking out their windows, which seemed suspicious because other neighbors were out helping search for the boy.

He said George Edenfield admitted he’d seen Christopher outside, then told the detective he heard voices calling his name.

“I asked him what voices did he hear that called his name, and he said ‘the devil,’” Sarro said. “I asked if the devil told him to do anything to hurt the little boy. He told me yes, that the devil told him to kill him.”

TexasDude on October 1, 2009 at 2:52 AM

Here’s Polanski in his own words in 1979 ….

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

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

I wonder if this is really true. If the reason for the Polanski apologists is because they have actually done this or have had it happen to them? How can you condemn someone for something you want or actually do?

You know, Hollywood folks tend to put on appearances that they want to be serious actors, but for the most part, they just want to be porn stars and do everything they can to morph the industry to a porn industry.

TexasDude on October 1, 2009 at 3:02 AM

I long for the days when perverts were never defended, when gays were back in the closet, instead of shoving it our faces every day, and America didn’t listen to Hollywood for their ideals, instead they knew Hollywood stars were the scum of America

Jeff from WI on October 1, 2009 at 7:29 AM

TexasDude on October 1, 2009 at 3:02 AM

NO it’s not “true”; but it’s what child-abuser’s think.

SarahW on October 1, 2009 at 10:33 AM

AnninCA, you have expressed concern about plea deals not being “worth the paper they are printed on”. Ususally they are not printed on paper, but more importantly, they are not binding on a judge, he retains his discretion in imposition of sentence.

SarahW on October 1, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Even if we ignore the rape and rape it was, against a sobbing 13 year old girl, the felony flight is another matter. He fled based on his fear that he MIGHT get more than a minimum sentence.

That in and of itself needs to be addressed, else justice is Polanskied.

GunRunner on October 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM

Put Polansky away. Nowadays, it’s the 13 year olds who will come after him.

Can ya feel it? Can ya feel it?

Mojave Mark on October 1, 2009 at 8:55 PM

As I’ve said before, for society to work, it must have rules and at least a belief that all are equal before it.

http://truthandcommonsense.com/2009/09/29/roman-polanski-arrested-after-thirty-years-of-running-in-place/

Polanski committed the crime, confessed to the crime, made a deal then took off when it looked dicey that justice was going to be a little more severe than HE wanted.

He comes back, faces the court and we’ll let the court decide. He doesn’t get the right, as a rich, leftist, elite to pick and chose his fate or punishment. If you allow that to happen, for the elite to set different rules for themselves over the rest of society, you think things are bad now, you just wait!

The reaction in France over those same exact issues was long and bloody and vengeful. But the people had no other place to turn for justice. For any society to stand, all must stand equal before the law. Do you think if Manson had fled to France, lived a long life, contributed to society and made elite friends that Polanski would have said, after thirty years of so, all things are forgiven?

No. And that’s the point.

archer52 on October 2, 2009 at 7:49 AM

I wish they would just kill this thread. I can’t stand to look at that witch’s face anymore.

ronnyraygun on October 2, 2009 at 9:55 AM

I read the transcript and had to stop around page 25 because it was getting graphic.

He took pictures of her topless long before he drugged her. There should be a law that bans adults from photographing kids naked even if they cover up with their hand, etc. There is absolutely no good reason to allow it.

jeffn21 on October 2, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4