I dont get it. He drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, pled guilty and then ran to another country before being sentenced. I dont get why the media gives this guy a pass cause it happened a long time ago and he is a good director. These same news people were still bashing Michael Jackson years after he showed up to court and proclaimed his innocence after being accused of something similar. And even though he was found not guilty they continued to say horrible things about him and call him a peadophile and predator... But this Polanski guy ran like a coward and got to enjoy a great career and new life without facing the music. This CNN news guy just said, well it was 30 years ago and he has a new family now..etc...It seems that more and more the news is becoming almost all opinion and no facts. F@ck The Pianist, I fell asleep during that sh@t.

__________________
Psalm 144:* Blessed be the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle

Sex with a minor is wrong, but drugged and raped? Pedophile? Lets not over dramatize. Who know how old she seemed. Anyways, not to excuse what he did, but he was obviously totally fucked up over the murder of his wife at the hands of the Charles Manson crowd.

__________________
...if the arrow is straight and the point is slick,
it can pierce through dust no matter how thick.
So I'll make my stand and remain as I am,
and bid farewell and not give a damn.

Your wife being murdered is no reason for drugging and sodimising an underage girl. I like some of Polanski's films but have no sympathy for that kind of behaviour.

Exactly, someone like that gotta pay for it like anyone else... The fact is it wasn't sex or relations like that, he actually abused her...... If you think of what that does to the girl, then it shouldn't make any difference if he's a direction or a heroin junkie now, he should get the same punishment...


Certainly not any sympathy just because he has what is considered a highly respectable and appreciated position in our society as a director...

Of course he probably is a great guy these days to everyone, but that's not the point.. Jails probably have plenty of great guys who've done one dumb thing, but you do something that takes that much away from another human being, it doesn't matter what else you have going for you, you gotta pay..

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Hollywood always forgives "genius"...ever wonder how Woody Allen keeps making movies after what he's done?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Let's not get a-head of ourselves David

That's no way to get a-head in life

Now is not the time to lose one's head


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

With regards to his wife, well like i said, it wasn't to excuse or sympathize with the behaviour, but it does provide some insight into his state of mind, if that sort of thing interests you. He was a normal guy at one point, and he has zero history of this kind of thing.

As for the drugging bit, it's more like he gave them to her, and she took them. Yeah it's wrong, but it's not like he slipped something into her drink to incapacitate her.

Forget the anal sex part, unless you consider that to be somehow worse than the "normal variety", in which case you're getting moral.

Anyways, I'll repeat my point, this time pay attention. Yes what he did was dead wrong, it was also a crime. But the conviction was for unlawful sex with a minor, not for rape. I see a difference. It wasn't your typical act of violence. A rapist he ain't. So there's no need to portray this as being any worse than it already was. You might consider what the victim herself has to say about it. "An unpleasant memory...but I can live with it.., he made a mistake,... but he's paid his dues and he's not a danger to society"

The media do seem to give him a free pass and yeah, it could because of catherine tate.

I think the reason that Jacko couldn't shake it off is because of hos much he was in the spot light... the media and most of the people they serve are vultures who love to watch somebody go down crashing asn burnung and Polanski didn't have that level of exposure.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

....what if that 13 year old was your daughter?

Obviously you'd want to tear his throat out but you should also be angry at yourself for allowing your daughter anywhere near that situation.

No chance in hell would anybody photograph my daughter without me being 100% present, especially not some artsy shoot for vogue.

....Polanski gave her qualudes and then slept with her

As for him being screwed up from his wifes death, that is no excuse and I dont buy it. He was known to have had affairs with other women and didnt see her that often at the time she was murdered. But thats not the point and doesnt prove anything. But Polanki directed some of his greatest films like Chinatown after he murder and before he raped this girl. He made a conscious decision to take advantage of a 13 year old, sexually. He was a grown man then, hes a grown man now. I dont care if he the nicest guy in the world today. He never did his time for that. He ran and is still trying to get away with not facing his own criminal sentencing...I think Charlie Manson is eligable for parole soon. Should have to go in front of the board or should they just send him to France so he can enjoy life cause after all those murders were 30+ years ago now, and im sure hes a nice lad now.

Your point being?

As much as Polanski is obviously to blame... with parental supervision (which as I've said... should really have been given if your 13 year old daughter is doing a fashion shoot for vogue, especially as she openly said she had misgivings about polanski during the first of the two shoots) it couldn't of been allowed to happen.

So her mother brought her around for famous people to have sex with her what does that matter?....it doesn't change the law, all that does is make the girl's mother an accomplice. Even if it was consensual it's against the law due to her age at the time.

Being a good film producer doesn't make you a good human being. I don't know Roman Polanski's life very much beside the Tate episode, his relationship with the 13 years old girl, his movies and that is pretty much everything meaningful that I know.
Does is wife incident screwed him psychologically? Assuredly, and I think that we would all seriously be if we would have been him. Does it excuse what he did? Assuredly not; being depressed and in need of psychological help doesn't excuse you for putting Winny dingy into a 13 years old virgin thingie; If he did feel the urge to to so, he had the perfect excuse to go see a psychologist a.s.a.p before getting any further into his depression.
Thus said, they did interviewed the girl to which it happened (now 45) and she says she's in favor to stop the procedures against him, I think that it sould too be taken in consideration in his case though it doesn't excuse what he did before.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That's the way it is, not the way it ends

He's the same as Michael Jackson as far as I'm concerned. Both were accused of something, but their 'genius' & the fact they've had horrific stuff happen to them in their lives is seen as a reason for their 'innocence' to their supporters or a justification.

I feel sorry for both for the stuff that happened (MJ's stuff with his Dad, Polanski's mother being killed in Auschwitz & the murder of his wife & unborn child), but it doesn't excuse what happened later. The only difference I'd not is that Jackson's 'alleged' victims wanted him prosecuted, whilst Polanski's just wants it to be let go. As far as I'm concerned, they both belonged in jail (cue MJ fans saying 'he was never found guilty in a court of law').