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.

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.

Can ya feel it? Can ya feel it?

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

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

“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.

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.”

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

. . .
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.