Patterico's Pontifications


Roman Polanski Receives Standing Ovation At Venice Film Festival

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:54 pm

[guest post by Dana]

This, in spite of the unraveling horror show that is Jeffrey Epstein and his countless sexual assaults on untold numbers of minor females. I just can’t even. First, a brief reminder of what Polanski did:

On March 10, 1977, Polanski, then 43, invited 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Geimer) to the Los Angeles home of pal Jack Nicholson for a photo shoot. After plying Gailey with glasses of champagne and half a Quaalude, she alleged that she felt “dizzy… like things were kind of blurry sometimes. I was having trouble with my coordination, like walking and stuff.” She then claimed that Polanski placed her on a bed and performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex on her—ignoring her repeated pleas for him to stop. “I was mostly just on and off saying, ‘No, stop.’ But I wasn’t fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go,” she later testified.

Although not in attendance, the audience at the Venice Film Festival was wowed by Polanski and his new film. And as they gave the director a five-minute standing ovation, #MeToo gasped its last breath:

The Venice Film Festival played host to an uncomfortable scene this weekend, as director and convicted sex offender Roman Polanski garnered rapturous applause for his new film, J’Accuse. (English title: An Officer and a Spy. Polanski—who fled the United States decades ago and was expelled from the Motion Picture Academy in 2018—did not receive the applause in person, though journalists reportedly cheered co-producer Luca Barbareschi’s assertion that the event was “a film festival, not a moral trial.”

Vulture documented the strange scene, which featured cast member Emmanuelle Seigner (also Polanski’s third wife) and star Louis Garrel sharing nothing but praise for the absent Polanski’s direction. Co-star Jean Dujardin reportedly wished all actors “the good fortune of one day working with Polanski;” attempts from journalists to reference Polanski’s criminal history were met with both shutdowns from producers and further applause.

In later years, a number of women came forward with their own accusations that Polanski had sexually assaulted them as well. The three women claim they were ages 10, 15 and 16 years old when Polanski assaulted them.

Polanski, in a recent interview with a French media outlet, said that the “persecution” he has faced from people inspired him while he worked on the film:

…J’Accuse chronicles the early 20th century “Dreyfus Affair,” in which Alfred Dreyfus (played by Garrel in the film), a Jewish officer in the French Army, was fraudulently convicted of giving military secrets to the Germans, sentenced to lifetime imprisonment, and banished to a prison island. (He was later exonerated and freed.) Polanski made no secret of parallels to his own conviction in a recent interview with French writer Pascal Bruckner, who called the allegations “present-day neo-feminist McCarthyism.”

“In the story, I sometimes find moments I have experienced myself, I can see the same determination to deny the facts and condemn me for things I have not done,” Polanski said in the interview, which was included in official film notes distributed to press. “Most of the people who harass me do not know me and know nothing about the case. . . . I must admit that I am familiar with many of the workings of the apparatus of persecution shown in the film, and that has clearly inspired me.”

The victim’s grand jury testimony tells us pretty much what we need to know about Roman Polnski: (Warning: very graphic)

A. Then he lifted up my legs and went in through my anus.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. He put his penis in my butt.

. . . .

Q. Do you know whether he had a climax?

A. Yes.

Q. And how do you know that?

A. Because I could kind of feel it and it was in my underwear. It was in my underwear. It was on my butt and stuff.

Q. When you say that, you believe that he climaxed in your anus?

A. Yes.

Q. What does climax mean?

A. That his semen came out.

Q. Do you know what semen is?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see some semen or feel some semen?

A. I felt it.

Q. Where did you feel it?

A. I felt it on the back of my behind and in my underwear when I put them on.

Contrary to Polanski’s claim, I think we all pretty much know that what he did to that child. And what I know compels me to never, ever watch one of his films, let alone give him a standing ovation.People who choose to support Polanski and give him standing ovations, demonstrate an obscenely elitist indecency. For if you are willing to ignore and/or rationalize the sexual assault of a child for the sake of “art,” then you are an indecent person. Maybe the audience wasn’t bothered by the suffering of a child because they believe that the resulting art would not have been possible had it not been for the suffering that Polanski has endured in the aftermath. Some people are able to separate art from the morality (or lack therein) of the artist. To me, if the artist has inflicted a destructive act of violence on a child, I will never be one of those people.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)



In Defense of Sam Seder’s Tweet About the Rape of His Daughter and Roman Polanski

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:00 am

If you’re the type of person who uses the word “cuck” unironically, then to you, MSNBC’s Sam Seder is the cuckiest cuck that ever cucked — because Seder hates the alt right. (Full disclosure: so do I.) Seder has consistently pushed a crusade against that gang of conspiracy nuts, including Mike “Pizzagate” Cernovich. If you know anything about alt-righters, their God is the God of Retaliation. Nothing else in life really matters to them besides getting back at their perceived enemies. So Cernovich took a break from his conspiracy theories about shampoo to dig up this old tweet from Seder:

And managed to get Seder fired:

MSNBC has decided not to renew its contract with contributor Sam Seder after an old tweet emerged in which Seder joked about Roman Polanski raping his daughter, TheWrap has learned.

Seder’s contract ends in February and he has no scheduled appearances between now and then, a spokesperson for MSNBC told TheWrap.

. . . .

A person familiar with the situation said the decision to sever ties with Seder was directly related to the Polanski matter.

“Internally there was disgust over the tweet,” said the individual.

The tweet was first brought to wide attention last month by the pro-Trump journalist and activist Mike Cernovich.

Idiots. Dupes.

To me, Seder’s tweet was a good and brave tweet. Was it shocking? You bet. But so is what Roman Polanski did to Samantha Geimer when she was 13 years old. Seder’s tweet is obvious satire, designed to mock the people in Hollywood who defended Polanski. The tweet is basically a Twitter version of what Ace of Spades wrote about Polanski in 2009:

And he drugged her, and even as she resisted, he raped her. And then, figuring, I guess, “Ah, what the hell, gone this far, might as well run the table,” he sodomized her.


But he made The Pianist. So — no biggie.

You’d think someone who is actually disgusted by Polanski’s actions, and by the excuses Polanski’s supporters made, would applaud Seder’s decision to take on those supporters. But of course, Cernovich cares more about his feuds than about what Polanski did to a 13-year-old. Cernovich saw an opportunity to slam Seder and he took it. Cernovich pretended that the tweet supported Polanski, and rallied his mindless band of pearl-clutching fake opponents of political correctness, who predictably flew into an entirely phony outrage about the tweet. These Fierce Defenders of Free Speech took a tweet that attacked Polanski’s defenders, and screamed: Sam Seder defends Polankski! Sam Seder thinks rape is funny! Sam Seder thinks rapes of little girls are funny, including the rape of his own daughter! Blah blah outrage blah blah offended blah blah.

Seder explained last week what should have been obvious: it was a slam on Hollywood elites who defended the rape of a child because the rapist made some movies people like:

“This smear involves the willful misinterpretation of a tweet that I posted in 2009,” said Seder, who said Cernovich and his allies were deliberately misrepresenting him to silence his criticism of Roy Moore and President Trump. “I will never be ashamed of criticizing those who would excuse the predation of women or girls. And I certainly won’t be quiet about Roy Moore or a conservative movement that which would defend his actions so they could get his vote in the Senate.”

Seder said the tweet was satirical and was intended to show his disgust with liberals at the time who were attempting to apologize for Polanksi’s past behavior.

So now Mike Cernovich has managed to get the scalp of a guy who actually fought the left’s apologetics on Polanski.

Congratulations, I guess. The Phony Outrage Mob has claimed another victim.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]


Polanski Phones It In (Update: New Swiss Deportation Law)

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 7:22 am

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

Lots of interesting bits on this article about Polanski winning an award given out by a bunch of people I never heard of before, don’t care much about.  But in case you do care:

Roman Polanski’s “The Ghost Writer,” a story of a journalist hired to write the memoirs of a British prime minister, has won the prize for best film at the European Film Awards.

But it seems he doesn’t totally feel safe picking up his award in person:

“You have awarded a truly European venture. This is too much … thank you very much,” Polanski said in an acceptance speech through a Skype connection from an unknown location. “I wish to thank—before anything—this wonderful crew I had, a truly European crew.”

(Emphasis added.)  And then as usual, the AP mangles the facts:

As he was finishing the movie in September 2009 Polanski was taken into custody at Zurich airport by Swiss police at the request of U.S. authorities to face prosecution in a 1977 child sex case. He had to finish editing the film while in Swiss prison before being released on house arrest.

In July, Polanski was freed after the Swiss government declined to deport him to the United States. But he still faces an Interpol warrant in 188 countries. Most European nations, including Estonia, have an extradition treaty with the United States.

To “face prosecution”?  No, to face sentencing.  Now he might also be prosecuted for fleeing the jurisdiction, but not for raping a child.

And would it kill them to call the crime “raping a child?”

Meanwhile, Ewan McGregor has the unintentionally funny line in the piece (emphasis added):

McGregor, who played the ghostwriter, said he had a “fantastic time” while making the film.

“More than any other part I’ve played I feel like the director Roman Polanski had his hands really on my performance and is as worthy of this award as I am,” McGregor told the audience through a video message from Thailand, where he is currently shooting a film.

Kids, do not let Roman touch your performance.  And he tries to, run and tell an adult (but not Ewan McGregor).

Update: Hat tip to SPQR in the comments who pointed me in the direction of this story:

Swiss Right Wins Vote on Deportation of Criminals

GENEVA — After heated debate and a campaign utilizing controversial “black sheep” posters, Switzerland’s far-right party won voters’ support in a referendum Sunday that calls for the automatic deportation of foreigners who are convicted of serious crimes….

Final results of the poll showed that 52.9 percent of voters and a majority of Switzerland’s cantons supported the rightist Swiss People’s Party initiative calling for the expulsion of foreigners convicted of crimes ranging from murder and rape to drug dealing and social security fraud.

Legal experts have warned that automatic deportation could violate a 1999 agreement between Switzerland and the European Union that provides for freedom of movement in the Continent. The government also expressed concern that the measure would breach Switzerland’s obligation not to return people to countries that practice torture.

But those arguments evidently made little impression on voters uneasy over a large immigrant population.

A counter-proposal by the government and center-right parties opposed to the People’s Party initiative that was also put to the vote in the referendum failed to garner a majority in any of the cantons and won support from only 46 percent of voters. The counter-proposal also would have toughened provisions for deporting foreigners, but it would have allowed a judge to review each case.

There is no mention in the New York Times article about whether the Polanski situation inspired this law, or what the proposal actually is.  For the second part, you have to go to, of all things, the Amnesty International website which explains that:

If the results of the referendum known as the ’Deportation Initiative’ are implemented, the Swiss constitution would be amended to permit the “automatic” and immediate deportation of non-citizens convicted for certain criminal offences to their countries of origin.

So if they are characterizing this correctly, this allows for automatic deportation—which AA and a few other sources understand to mean without any judicial review.  Depending on how it is written, it might mean merely that they have no business exercising mercy, but they can make sure that the person is actually convicted, etc. of the relevant crimes.  And if it only allows for such deportations, then this doesn’t mean that the legislature has to put that into effect.  I mean, Congress is allowed to pass an income tax under the constitution, but that doesn’t mean it has to.

They even show you what the hell that “black sheep” ad was and it is pretty hard to defend:

And while cases like the Polanski case makes me sympathize with this law’s impulse, it is still wrong.  For instance, if a man said something critical of Switerland, could that country get him expelled from China by convicting him of trumped up charges?  At the very least, if I was in Switzerland, I would advocate that the automatic expulsion only apply when the convictions are in certain countries that practice a modicum of due process.  Switzerland can rationally say the United States of America is not the same as China.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]


Yet Another Woman Accuses Polanski of Rape

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:37 am

I have been dilatory in passing this along:

Another woman has come forward charging that Roman Polanski raped her in 1974, has exclusively learned.

The woman, who was 21 at the time, reported the alleged sexual assault to the Los Angeles District Attorney in May and was interviewed by authorities.

Edith Michelle Vogelhut, a former model also known as Shelli Paul, told authorities Polanski “handcuffed” her at actor Jack Nicholson’s Hollywood house where he was staying, then sodomized her repeatedly, before he passed out, has learned exclusively.

Recall that Charlotte Lewis made a similar accusation some time back.

Well done, Swiss authorities. It’s a fine artiste you protected with your transparently ridiculous decision not to extradite. Well done indeed.


Swiss Deny Polanski Extradition Request; Director Is a Free Man

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:07 am

I have told people privately for some time that this would happen. But I didn’t think the reasoning would be this transparently ridiculous:

The justice ministry of Switzerland said on Monday that it had denied a request to extradite the director Roman Polanski to the United States, where he has been a fugitive since 1978 after pleading guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl, and that he was no longer under house arrest.

In rejecting the extradition request from the United States, the Swiss ministry cited two factors: first, the Swiss said, the U.S. had failed to provide the records of a January hearing in Los Angeles County Superior Court that would have shown the judge in charge of the Polanski case in 1977 agreed that “the 42 days of detention spent by Roman Polanski in the psychiatric unit of a Californian prison represented the whole term of imprisonment he was condemned to.”

Second, the Swiss said, when Mr. Polanski traveled in September 2009 to the Zurich Film Festival where he was arrested as he arrived at the airport, he did so in “good faith” that “the journey would not entail any legal disadvantages for him.” The Swiss justice ministry noted that Mr. Polanski had been staying regularly in Switzerland since 2006, and though “he was registered in the Swiss registry of wanted persons, he was never controlled by the Swiss authorities.”

The judge never agreed that 42 days would be his entire sentence. At most, he said that 48 additional days (on top of the original 42) would be the full sentence — if Polanski agreed to certain illegal conditions that he never agreed to.

As for his good faith belief he would not be arrested: so what?

He plied a 13 year-old with drugs and anally raped her, and was confined to a Swiss chalet.



Polanski Accuser’s Evidence

Filed under: Crime — DRJ @ 11:28 am

[Guest post by DRJ]

John Nolte at BigGovernment thinks the latest Polanski rape accuser has corroborating evidence — a witness who may verify she made a contemporaneous outcry:

“When British actress Charlotte Lewis first came forward to accuse fugitive director Roman Polanski of abusing her in 1983 at a press conference last week, one of the more intriguing statements was made by her attorney Gloria Allred:

“[Ms. Lewis] did present fresh complaint evidence to law enforcement, and it is in their possession.”

The Polanski-loving media didn’t mention this. They prefer a ”He Said, She Said” argument. Upon hearing this, however, my first thought was that a witness would be interesting, though obviously unlikely.

This is me speculating, but in a just-released statement Ms. Lewis might have revealed what that fresh complaint evidence is. And while it’s not a witness to the crime, it is the next best thing:

I stand by my statements to the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, and would welcome the chance to confront Roman Polanski face to face anytime, anywhere in the world because I am telling the truth and he knows it,” Ms Lewis said.

Further, shortly after the incident with Mr Polanski when I was 16 I told a friend the truth about how Mr Polanski had taken advantage of me.

“My attorney, Gloria Allred, delivered a notarised statement to law enforcement from that friend and it supports my statement.”

According to Ms. Lewis, under penalty of perjury, someone has made a sworn statement that Ms. Lewis told them Polanski took advantage of her — and told them shortly after the incident.”

Does California consider the testimony of a rape outcry witness as an exception to the hearsay code? My guess is that it does.



Woman: Polanski Forced Himself on Me When I Was a Teenager

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:03 pm

Knock me over with a feather:

A British woman came forward Friday alleging sexual assault against director Roman Polanski, who is currently under house arrest in Switzerland for the sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

In a press conference at her attorney Gloria Allred’s Los Angeles office, Charlotte Lewis, an actress who appeared in Polanski’s 1986 film “Pirates,” alleged that Polanski sexually abused her in the “worst way possible” when she was 16 years old. Lewis claims the attack took place in Paris in 1982, four years after he fled the U.S. to escape sentencing for the sexual assault of 13-year-old Samantha Geimer.

According to Lewis, now 42, Polanski was aware that she was 16 at the time when he “forced himself” on her in his apartment. The legal age of consent in France is 15.

“He took advantage of me,” Lewis said. “What I want is justice.”

Shocking, huh? Not to Patterico readers, it’s not.

Loyal readers will recall that, back in September of 2009, I asked a simple question:

Roman Polanski’s defenders continually emphasize one thing: that despite raping a child in Los Angeles, he has never done anything like that since.

I have a simple question: how do we know that?

The next day, quoting his statement that “everyone wants to fuck young girls,” I said:

And you Polanski defenders think he didn’t do this to anyone else, huh?

I think you’re wrong.

A couple of days later I said:

The girl he raped in L.A. is not the only underage girl he had sex with. And I feel certain that she is not the only underage girl he raped, either.

Always trust content from Patterico.

UPDATE: Will this revelation change the minds of the directors who recently signed a petition advocating Polanski’s exoneration? Don’t be an idiot. To them, the auteur is above silly things like laws against sodomizing 13-year-old girls; why would another forced encounter with an underaged girl change these moral midgets’ minds?


Roman Polanski: “I Can Remain Silent No Longer”

Filed under: Crime — Patterico @ 5:46 pm

An extensive whine translated into several languages:

It is true: 33 years ago I pleaded guilty, and I served time at the prison for common law crimes at Chino, not in a VIP prison. That period was to have covered the totality of my sentence. By the time I left prison, the judge had changed his mind and claimed that the time served at Chino did not fulfil the entire sentence, and it is this reversal that justified my leaving the United States.

No, it didn’t.

It is important to note a few points, based on a reading of the publicly available documents in the case, including Polanski’s plea transcript and a Court of Appeals decision extensively setting forth the underlying facts.

1. Roman Polanski did not plead guilty based on the assurance that he would receive only a brief 42-day prison sentence as his entire punishment. When he pled, he knew he could receive as much as 20 years in prison. Neither the judge nor anyone else had made him any promises about what his sentence would be, and his plea did not and could not rely on any promise or assurance from the judge.

2. It is alleged that, on a later date in September 1977, the judge told the lawyers in chambers that he intended to send Polanski to state prison for a “diagnostic study” (which is normally for a period of 90 days) as Polanski’s entire punishment. The lawyers have filed affidavits stating that the judge was told that this procedure was improper, as such diagnostic studies are not intended to serve as punishment, but rather as a tool to allow an evaluation of the defendant, to help determine what further punishment, if any, is appropriate.

3. Polanski served only 42 days instead of the usual 90 — and it has been alleged that the judge wanted to send him back to prison for the balance of that 90 days.

4. The Court of Appeal has said that if Polanski believed that he had been wronged by the judge in any way, there were several options available to him. Given that the Deputy District Attorney on the case is a forthright and honest individual, as Polanski and his lawyer concede, Polanski could have addressed these issues contemporaneously with the full cooperation of that Deputy District Attorney.

Instead, Polanski chose to flee. His actions were not justified.

Speaking only for myself (as I always do on this blog), I have my doubts as to whether the Swiss have any intention of releasing Polanski to the U.S. But regardless of how this all comes out, the way he has flouted our justice system has never been justified.


Swiss Official: Polanski Could Be in His Chalet for a Year

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:19 pm

Roman Polanski could be in his Gstaad chalet for a year:

Film director Roman Polanski could spend up to a year in courts appealing if Switzerland decided to extradite him to the United States, the Swiss justice minister was quoted as saying on Sunday.

. . . .

“After an extradition decision by the Swiss justice ministry, Mr. Polanski has the possibility of appealing to the Federal Criminal Court and then the Federal Supreme Court,” Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf told the newspaper Le Matin Dimanche.

“It’s hard to say how long (an appeal) would take, but it could be from several months to a year.”

The evident goal here is for him to collect so much time “served” at his chalet that, when that time is credited against any possible prison sentence he might receive, Polanski wouldn’t have to spend any time at all in a California prison. I won’t express any opinion as to whether he would be entitled to have his time at the chalet credited against any prison sentence. But if he were entitled to such credit, and if it takes a year for all the appeals to be resolved, that could eat up most or all of the actual time he would have to serve — given he reportedly faces a maximum sentence of two years, minus any credits he would already be entitled to from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.



P.S. The story repeats the canard that there was an “agreement” that he serve only 42 more days:

He has said he feared the judge was going to renege on an agreement to sentence him to the 42 days he had already served behind bars.

An “agreement” implies a quid pro quo. And as I have explained countless times, there was no “agreement” because Polanski pled to a charge that he knew carried at least 20 years, with no agreement as to what the sentence would be.

Good luck trying to get a correction . . .


Judge: Polanski Must Be Present for His Sentence

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:21 pm

Absent a successful appeal, Roman Polanski will not be sentenced in absentia.

A judge has rejected director Roman Polanski’s bid to be sentenced in absentia in a three-decade-old child-sex case.

Judge Peter Espinoza ruled that Polanski, 76, will have to come back Los Angeles to be sentenced.

“I have made it clear he needs to surrender,” the judge said.

Polanski’s attorneys said they would appeal.

The court also rejected an appeal by the victim:

Lawrence Silver, who represents Ms. Geimer, admonished the judge that officers of the court were obligated by a new victims’ rights provision in the California Constitution to honor her request for an examination of official corruption in the case. The judge said he did not “believe anyone anticipated” the victims’ rights provision, called Marcy’s Law, would be used in support of a defendant like Mr. Polanski, and turned down the request.


Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3050 secs.