cal-Q-L8 wrote on 28. Sep 2009 at 11:20:
The reason he fled from justice in the first place was because the judge and the prosecutor backed out of a plea bargain that was made before he admitted his guilt.
I've seen many similar cases where people admit to doing things if they are given a lighter sentence. They do this because they are not confident they will get a fair trial or maybe they feel that a jury will convict them on circumstantial evidence, thus resulting in a much heavier sentence.
Polanski was still suffering from a major trauma at the time, and the girl was introduced to him by her mother. I always suspected he was set up by the mother in an effort to extort money from him.
He's led a crime free life as far as I know for 32 years. His reputation was severely damaged and his movements were limited. He's constantly been under intense scrutiny.
The girl was 13. I've seen plenty that age that look 16 or 17. Many countries have a much lower age of consent. California Law sucks shit!
Laws are supposedly made to protect people not to satisfy the whims of the morally up-righteous. IMO, putting Polanski in jail after all these years serves no purpose whatsoever other than to satisfy the stuck up over zealous 'moral' wankers.
Besides, the 'victim' had already asked that the charges be dropped.
Cal, I hear what you're saying and I don't necessarily want to see him go to prison at 76 and with so much more to contribute to the film industry. I couldn't agree with you more on many of your points.
I well understand the legal system esspecially in California having been a victim of it and later becoming a Certified Paralegal. I am well aware of the "Plea Bargaining" process and the pros and cons of it. If the Judge and D.A. were going to back out of the plea agreement, did back out of it, or changed the conditions of such without informing the defense prior to the defendant Mr. Polanski pleading guilty, then the plea agreement is no good and the guilty plea in not a valid plea. His lawyers could have or should have either filed a motion to demand "Specific Performance" of the original plea agreement or a "Motion To Vacate" the guilty plea. If what is claimed happened during the trial proceedings is true then is does constitute misconduct on both the parts of the judge and prosecution. His lawyers should have dealt with these issues and resolved them back then. Since this was all the results of a plea agreement and not a trial it is doubtful that the appeals courts can or will get involved as there really is no recourse in the appellete courts from a guilty plea.
I have seen pictures of the girl from the time of the incident as she was an aspiring model and actress and it is very obvious that she is only 12-13 years old to me. Of course, he was introduced to the girl by her parent as that is the way it works, and nobody in that business or any other business is going to be meeting a minor privately or without a parent present as it is both deemed inappropriate and possibly suicidal to your reputation. Besides, you cannot enter into any form of legal agreement or contract with a minor as it is not vaild or enforceable. So that arguement doesn't work.
I am also well aware of what Mr. Polanski went through or was going through with the Tate/Labionca murders at the hands on the Manson Family. I had just moved to Los Angeles around that time when I was a kid. Yeah, I can see him starting to drink or use drugs or something but as I understand he was already doing so long before the murders as it was commonplace then in the industry. However, I do not see it as an excuse or defense to drug and molest a child.
Age-Of-Consent laws in the United States vary somewhat but in most states it is 18 years old, in most of the others it is 16, in a few it varies from 15-13. However, there is a push to change those laws and make them all 18. The U.S. Government is even pushing the conservatives in Canada to change their laws to up their age of consent laws to 18 as they did with England and other countries. Yup, the good old U.S. of A sticking it's self-righteous noses in the rest of the world's business as usual. Yes, California Laws such shit and that is not just the statute laws but also the case laws interpreting statute laws in California to make them even broader, harsher, and more draconian than the legislatures intended when they wrote them. And it doesn't end when you get out of prison on a sex charge in California. That's when the other set of nightmares begins.
At the end of the day if or when Mr. Polanski is extradicted back to the U.S. if the claims of misconduct are true and the plea deal was changed before Mr. Polanski pled guilty without the defense being put on notice and given the opportunity to withdraw from the plea agreement, and either negotiate a new agreement or go to trial, then the guilty plea should be set aside and the case should be returned to the "Status Quo Ante" or back to square one. If that happens and the defense demands to go to trial with the mutual understanding that the witness will NOT testify then prosecution at this point will be almost a Moot issue. Yes, if there was a Preliminary Hearing conducted prior to the plea agreement where the girl already testified, which is usually the case because it is a legal requirment to establish cause to bind a defendant over for trial, then they do have that. However, if he goes to trial she would need to testify at the trial to and failure to do so denies the defense the right to "cross-examine" the witness which violates the defendant constitutional protections under the Sixth Amendment and Due Process under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. So any convictions or prison at this time is nearly impossible without the victims testimony and with the legal team he can afford now pretty much forget about it. Sorry about the rant.
Pages: 1
News (Read 5,430 times)
