Question 1) Did he commit the crime…
Yes
Question 2) Was he convicted?
Yes, sorta…. Plea bargain
Here are the parts of the story I don’t understand. Why the Jones to catch him now? The docudrama?
Probably. But California was bankrupt the last time I looked. Do you send three police officers to pick up a director about to receive a lifetime achievement award or do you infuse money into today’s cases? Does anyone believe this isn’t media motivated?
What about our victim, a woman who’s tried to move past this instance for DECADES. Does this woman really deserve the repeated “flavor of the month” she’s received over the decades? Last time I checked California was a victims right state. But apparently I’m wrong.
I think, more than anything it’s a case the State of California thinks it has a chance with but then they thought that about O.J.
It’s forty years later and time for everyone to take a deep breath. Two years ago I read an article, an innocent article in Vanity Fair where the author stated that when Polanski was in town he stayed at a certain friend’s house. That is a slap in the face, illegal immigration and all that. Thus the jones.
I’ve always wished I could see Polanski direct one last American Movie. There is no doubt he has IT, whatever IT is. I also realize that if, at age thirteen a man his age who was paying me decided that “sex would make the performance pure” well, that would be a false statement. Forty years later the victim is entitled to peace, and I shall never see another American Polanski movie.
The fact that his tragedy surpasses hers tonight? Shame on us all.
If I ever needed a reason to drop this blog from my reader, this is it. How awful for you that you won't get to see another Polanski-directed film made in the U.S. Also, how wrong-headed of you. The shame belongs to those defending Polanski.
Sorry Ruth, we'll have to disagree here. The crime was serious even if the victim wants to move on. Parents of murder victims forgive murderers, but states don't set them free.
If Polanski didn't commit the crime, that should come out in court. If he did but there was some procedural confusion, that can be cleared up in court. If he took sexual advantage of a child, he belongs in jail. If talent were a reason to leave him alone, then Michael Vick (who didn't actually hurt anybody) should have been left alone too.
Ruth isn't defending Polanski, she's saying that maybe the victim deserves some peace.
Every time this is dragged up she is the one who has it brought back to haunt her in the news.
She's also questioning why California waited till now to go after him. Polanski does belong in Jail. No doubt.
So don't misinterpret Ruth's concern for the victim for defense of Polanski.
Whether or not the victim wants to prosecute and "move on" is irrelevant. Many victims are often intimidated (by friends of the criminal) into not pressing charges, but if the crime is serious enough, the authorities do it for them.
Ruth, if Polanski were not a "great artist", would you still be on his side? How about if he had sex (and drugged) your 13-year-old daughter? Should he then be set free just so California can save money? Then he could make "another great American movie", right?
How about Phil Spector? He was a "great artist". Should California have not prosecuted him in order to save money? Or maybe they should set him free. After all, think of all the money they'll save, and we can hear another sensational album produced by this "great artist".
Two words sum this up: child rape. There's your reason to put this scumbag in prison where he belongs.