Patterico's Pontifications


Anne Applebaum: Patterico Is “Not Quite As Offensive” As Reader Who Expressed a Wish to Rape Anne Applebaum’s Daughter

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:49 pm

Almost as offensive, you see. Just not quite as offensive.

Anne Applebaum today responds to my post noting that she failed to disclose her husband’s official governmental actions on behalf of Roman Polanski. She prefaces her response to me by nutpicking a comment from some random guy who suggests that he would like to rape her daughter. Applebaum then falsely claims that I implied that she is a “spokesman for [her] husband” and says that implication (which I didn’t make)

while not quite as offensive as the implication that my daughter should be raped — is offensive nevertheless.

Get that? I’m “not quite as offensive” as someone who talked about raping her daughter! Thank goodness for small favors.

Applebaum explains why she claimed ignorance of her husband’s actions in a post that linked a story about her husband’s actions — she says an editor added the link later. OK. I’ll take her at her word on that. Chalk up another victory for self-publishing bloggers: we know what we’re linking.

Applebaum quotes (but does not link), not the post where I actually discussed her omission, but rather an earlier post that I updated to include a link to that post. That allows her to say:

Well, well, it turns out that the person who wrote that works for the Los Angeles County district attorney, as he points out in an “update.”

By mentioning the wrong post, and failing to link it, Applebaum accomplishes several goals:

  • She refers readers to a post that merely mentions her omission, rather than one that shows in detail why the omission is so egregious.
  • She manages to draw a false moral equivalence between myself and her. Had she linked the proper post, she would have seen my disclosure in the body of my post.
  • By characterizing her disclosure as part of an “update” but not linking it, she manages to obscure the fact that the observation I made about her omission in that post was also part of an update. You see, the whole issue was an afterthought to that post, because it was not the relevant post about her omission.

But you know, I’m glad she showed me that she read that post, because that is the post where I took her to task for falsely stating that Polanski had a trial. Applebaum has nowhere corrected that error. And now we know beyond all doubt that she is aware of the error, because she quoted my post where I pointed it out.

Having failed to correct one error, incredibly, Applebaum goes on to tell readers yet another falsehood about the Polanski affair:

Of course, there were some very legitimate disagreements, including two excellent ones from my colleagues Gene Robinson and Richard Cohen, and I take some of their points. But to them, and to all who imagine that the original incident at the heart of this story was a straightforward and simple criminal case, I recommend reading the transcript of the victim’s testimony (here in two parts) — including her descriptions of the telephone conversation she had with her mother from Polanski’s house, asking permission to be photographed in Jack Nicholson’s jacuzzi — and not just the salacious bits.

Uh, I read the transcript, Ms. Applebaum, and the portion regarding the telephone call with the mother does not say what you claim (and so what if it did???):

Q. What happened out there after he indicated he wished to take pictures of you in the jacuzzi?

A. We went inside and called my mother.

Q. When you say “we called,” did you call or did Mr. Polanski call?

A. He told me to and I talked and then he talked and then I talked again.

Q. What did you tell your mother?

A. She goes, “Are you all right?

I went, “Uh-huh.”

And she says, “Do you want me to come pick you up?”

And I went, “No.”

And he said that we’d be home kind of late because it had already gotten dark out.

Q. When you said “he said,” did he tell you or did you hear him tell your mother on the phone?

A. He told my mother.

Q, Did he tell your mother any other things?

A. Not that I was listening to.

Q. After talking to your mother on the telephone, what happened?

A. We went out and I got in the jacuzzi.

There is nothing in there about asking the victim’s mom for permission to have pictures taken in the jacuzzi. Applebaum made that part up. [UPDATE: Not that it matters. The suggestion that the mother’s consent to jacuzzi photographs would amount to consent to her daughter’s anal rape is perhaps Applebaum’s most amazing and offensive contention yet.]

It is amusing to read her commenters. They are having none of it.

For a different take on my criticisms of Applebaum, you’ll have to look to another Washington Post writer named Howard Kurtz, who writes today in his Media Notes column:

[Anne Applebaum’s] column draws this rebuke from Patterico’s Pontifications:

“Applebaum failed to mention that her husband is a Polish foreign minister who is lobbying for Polanski’s case to be dismissed:

“In Polanski’s native Poland, President Lech Kaczynski and Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said they would appeal to US authorities to drop proceedings against Polanski. The PAP news agency said Sikorski was consideri[ng] a direct appeal to US President Barack Obama to end ‘once and for all’ the proceedings against the filmmaker. Radoslaw Sikorski is married to Anne Applebaum . . .

“So at the same time that she was giving readers a fact-challenged screed in support of Polanski, she was failing to disclose that her husband was a Polish official who was lobbying for Polanski’s freedom.

“I work for the L.A. County District Attorney’s office, which is seeking Polanski’s extradition; that is no secret to anyone who reads this blog.”

Fair point.

Thanks, Howard. It’s nice to see that someone at your paper thinks so.

65 Responses to “Anne Applebaum: Patterico Is “Not Quite As Offensive” As Reader Who Expressed a Wish to Rape Anne Applebaum’s Daughter”

  1. Hmmm. Well, we will be hearing from a certain Moby soon enough. But it seems to me that most people aren’t fooled. I think that Applebaum just can’t admit that she screwed up.

    That is why she probably has her own form of astroturfing defenders. But as you say, most people aren’t buying it.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  2. They (a good chunk of the MSM) live in a bygone era. They used to get the last word on pretty much anything. Now, not so much.

    I can’t believe that Polanski has so many defenders.

    Chris (a24890)

  3. Err, Anne, remember the first rule of holes?

    Gazzer (22ecdc)

  4. Patterico wasn’t kidding! Applebaum is getting flayed in the comments from the uppity hoi polloi.

    I wonder if this will get attention from the WaPo brass, which seems to have been more preoccupied with what its journos say on Twitter.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  5. Random question – If someone is going to edit content and links without the author’s knowledge, what is the point of it being under an author’s name?

    As to the rest, pure unadulterated dishonesty and sophistry.

    JD (d71a7a)

  6. I recommend reading the transcript of the victim’s testimony (here in two parts) — including her descriptions of the telephone conversation she had with her mother from Polanski’s house, asking permission to be photographed in Jack Nicholson’s jacuzzi — and not just the salacious bits.

    wow. okay. while you’re reading the part where Anne Applebaum wants you to get the impression that this little girl was a slutty whore what was begging for it up the ass, you should think about how you’d feel just if someone were asking your daughter these questions what this little kid is being asked, much less how you’d feel if she were actually put into this position.

    Anne Applebaum is a sick sick twist I think.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  7. Skipping past the secondary issue (or distraction, as I have considered it all along) of disclosure about her husband’s job, this follow-up post from Ms. Applebaum is outrageous. Not only does she fudge the facts of Polanski’s crime, as Patterico points out, but she wants her readers to believe that the case is not a “straightforward and simple criminal case” — and she implies that the little girl who was raped was complicit in Polanski’s crime, and maybe even asking for it. Is there any other way to read Ms. Applebaum’s last paragraph?

    We are not talking about an incident of “gray rape” involving drunk college students. There is no ambiguity here. Polanski preyed upon, drugged, and raped a little girl, and then ran away from justice in the most cowardly fashion, seeking succor in the warm embrace of morally blind sycophants who think his art wipes away his sins.

    Ms. Applebaum is wrong about Polanski; her implication about the girl is disgraceful; and, coming from the mother of two children, her remarks are shameful.

    Abner Gromble (bb5a4d)

  8. Oh for godsake, what is wrong with Applebaum? She writes,

    “…including her descriptions of the telephone conversation she had with her mother from Polanski’s house, asking permission to be photographed in Jack Nicholson’s jacuzzi.”

    So. What.

    The permission *supposedly* given was to be photographed – NOT RAPED. Applebaum’s idiocy infers photography and rape are mutually inclusive.

    In Applebaum’s twisted world of surreal rationalizations, the mother is the one responsible for the rape because after all, she gave her permission? And how was Polanski to know what exactly it was she was giving permission for? Could he read her mind?! What else was he to think?!

    OMG. He was the victim!

    Dana (863a65)

  9. Good on Kurtz, for once. Although, I don’t even see a conflict of interest in regards to advocating for the law to be enforced, such that one must disclose they represent a body that enforces laws, unless following the law has become some questionable agenda at this late date in the decline of civilization.

    j curtis (baef6f)

  10. oh. sorry – i was commenting and reading in different windows and I got mixed up how you had handled that part, so that’s sorta redundant.

    Except the part about Anne Applebaum being a sick sick twist is value-added I think.

    She really should be banished and shunned I think. Nasty child rape apologist loser.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  11. The reaction of the Ms Applebaum and others on the left toward admitted pedophile Polanski reminds me some of how the left treated the women who accused President Clinton of sexual harassment. They want to absolve their favorite of blame. I do find this more disgusting, though, for the following reasons:

    1. Polanski entered a guilty plea.
    2. He has knowingly been avoiding the US, trying to escape justice.
    3. His victim was a minor.

    Once I was aware of his crimes, I vowed never to watch any of his movies, and I have stayed true to that. He has shown little to no remorse and deserves no amount of adoration or compassion.

    Patterico, to say that the commentors on Ms Applebaum’s site were having none of it is quite an understatement. I think they are letting her have it with both barrels.

    Gazzer is right. She is forgetting the first rule of holes.

    SomeOtherSteve (bde158)

  12. try saying “gray rape” ten times fast, Mr. Gromble. Bet you an ice cold PBR you can’t do it.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  13. By the way, Patterico, under California law, does a judge HAVE to accept the sentencing recommendation from a plea agreement?

    SomeOtherSteve (bde158)

  14. Gosh, and I really, really liked Gulag: A History. If she can’t get the little stuff right, how am I to trust her on something so important?

    Fritz (e04596)

  15. Applebaum needs to take a lesson from Kate Harding, writing for Salon, who boldly hits the nail on the head from the opening sentence and all the way through to the end of her unapologetic, non-rationalizing observations,

    Roman Polanski raped a child. Let’s just start right there, because that’s the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in “exile” (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never — poor baby — being able to return to the U.S.)

    Dana (863a65)

  16. I’ll be calling the main corporate contact number for the Washington Post in the morning.

    Why don’t we all do the same?


    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  17. Also, someone call child services where AA lives… If she so desires a child-rapist be set free, her children can’t possibly be safe.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  18. Anne Applebaum is not quite as offensive as Roman Polanski or ACORN.

    JD (d71a7a)

  19. Well, we know who wants to be invited to Gstaad again this year and who doesn’t, don’t we Patterico?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  20. I don’t understand why she doubled down on child rape when she knows that the LA people really for real want to bring him to justice and they wouldn’t be doing that if they didn’t think he wasn’t gonna go down. This is a done deal once he gets here, no?

    I think she’s doing it cause of her husband is afraid that Polish people will be unfairly associated with child rape. Which is kind of ironic cause the Polish foreign minister’s wife is gonna be famous as the vapid pseudojournalistic WaPo child rape cheerleader for like the rest of her life.

    I bet he dumps her ass.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  21. Comment by JD — 9/29/2009 @ 7:59 pm

    It’s ironic because while I certainly don’t believe her to be as offensive as Polanski, I’m not convinced she herself is even the least bit offended by him. Heh.

    Dana (863a65)

  22. didn’t think he wasn’t *not* gonna go down I mean… or somesuch

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  23. She’s scared. It used to be, people wouldn’t even pick up on the linkage until a few weeks after the scandal, if at all.

    It used to be, as long as the other MSM outlets agreed to keep a story quiet, the story would stay quiet.

    But you’re beating this drum, and it’s going to lead to a slap on the wrist–and she’s scared. Of a slap on the wrist. What a pathetic little creature.

    Daryl Herbert (38e6a5)

  24. That makes sense, really. And after she deals with the fear she’ll have the shame issues to contend with. She’s gonna be super fun to be around I bet.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  25. By the way, Patterico, under California law, does a judge HAVE to accept the sentencing recommendation from a plea agreement?

    No, but the defendant gets to withdraw his plea if the judge opts for something harsher than the agreement.

    However, in this plea agreement, there was no agreed-upon sentence. It was merely agreed that the judge would pass sentence after reading the probation report and hearing the arguments of counsel. Usually judges make up their own minds before all that happens — but they’re not so inartful as to openly say so.

    Patterico (64318f)

  26. Ah yes. Well – you know the girl-victim, or those who would punish Polanksi, now has to justify her actions, words, nuances, etc in the events leading up to the event.

    And Emmett Till really REALLY should not have mouthed off to that white woman. Sigh. What did he “expect”?

    A alternate definition of “justice” – build a time machine, go to Dallas 22 Nov. 1963, replace Jack Kennedy with Roman Polanski, circa 1977. Wait for the smell of Italian cordite.

    Californio (64c845)

  27. The good news on this discussion with Ms. A is that more and more people will come here and read your blog and come to appreciate the lack of honesty in news today, as well as the media’s contempt for their readers.

    Patricia (c95a48)

  28. Dana, this is a subset of the “celebrity worship’ meme in play here. It’s a variant on the “droit de seigneur” metaphor that used to be seen as something fundamentally wrong with male dominance.

    Except when the man is really, really cool like Polanski.

    Or is a really, really cool politician, it seems.

    Heck, people who claim to be feminists seem surprisingly selective on this subject.

    I’m delighted that so many people—independent of their politics—see this issue for what it is: defense of a child molester.

    I don’t care about Chinatown.

    And Polanski’s actions don’t suggest contrition to me. All the faux-sophisticated business about European mores goes out the window when you drug 13 year olds and have sex with them against their will.

    Heck, I wonder what Camille Paglia is going to say. That should be a party.

    Whoopi Goldberg, not so much. But watch for her to backtrack. After all, she may be nutty deluxe, but she isn’t stupid (other than Sister Act 2). She can read public opinion.

    Eric Blair (184ac1)

  29. It’s a variant on the “droit de seigneur” metaphor that used to be seen as something fundamentally wrong with male dominance.

    Except when the man is really, really cool like Polanski.

    Eric Blair, you bring up another thing I’ve been thinking about: the sort of woman would want to bed a man, wed him, and have his children all the while knowing he has consistently objectified and debased women – on top of raping a minor.

    While love certainly covers a multitude of sins, how does she know he is remorseful, and a changed man? How does one compartmentalize such weak character and vile choices while making vows until death do us part? Or does fame and fortune make the gamble less a risk?

    Polanski today is not so much about male dominance or even being really, really cool. Polanski today is more about a society having devolved to the point where art has now been assigned a far more intrinsic value and worth than a young girl.

    Something of great worth has been lost.

    Dana (863a65)

  30. Heck, I wonder what Camille Paglia is going to say. That should be a party.

    Yes! Paglia knows how to call out the hypocrisy of “feminists” and the left.

    But wait! We can’t take Camille Paglia seriously. That paragon of agenda-free media criticism, Media Matters, said so.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  31. Bradley, those brave folk at Media Matters should watch it. Paglia will go over there and slap some Italian intellectual sense into them, much like this:

    Eric Blair (184ac1)

  32. Bradley and Eric,

    In defense of feminists (yeah…I know…) there are some who indeed want to see justice served,

    Amanda Marcotte: But I cannot fucking believe how many people are willing to say upfront that famous film directors should have the full right to rape children, and if you try to stop that, you hate art or something.

    Reclusive Leftist: Instead he’s spent the past 31 years being a fugitive from justice (it’s not exactly “exile” since he’s living in his home country of France), making movies, and generally functioning as a walking audiovisual demonstration of the principle that Rich Men Can Get Away With Any Fucking Thing. It’s true that he’s a talented director and has made a couple of great films; it’s true that his own life has been tragically stained by collisions with the shit train (his mother died at Auschwitz, his wife was murdered by the Manson family). Still: he plied a 13-year-old girl with Quaaludes and champagne and then sodomized her.

    The F-Word: So essentially he got away with raping a child and has continued to enjoy international fame and success ever since; you’d think it was pretty clear cut that he deserves to pay for what he did, right? Well apparently there’s a special get out of jail free card if you make great films.

    If you’re expecting NOW to grow a backbone, give it up. They’re a moribund organization at best, and at worst, just really annoying and embarrassing.

    Dana (863a65)

  33. Dana, you aren’t wrong. There is something very sick in our society. It’s not new; I think that people have married deeply sick spouses for inexplicable reasons frequently.

    But yes, I wonder what (if anything) went through Polanski’s wife’s brain?

    On the other hand, the answer is clear:

    It’s like Harris having the huevos to actually call Polanski a “doting father” and bringing up his children. It’s like part of Harris’ soul is dead.

    We know that is true with Mr. Polanski.

    Fame? Look at the stuff with Kennedy’s apologists.

    Sigh. We destroy ourselves.

    Eric Blair (184ac1)

  34. Main Entry: sa·la·cious
    Pronunciation: \sə-ˈlā-shəs\
    Function: adjective
    Etymology: Latin salac-, salax, from salire to move spasmodically, leap — more at sally
    Date: circa 1645

    1 : arousing or appealing to sexual desire or imagination : lascivious
    2 : lecherous, lustful

    — sa·la·cious·ly adverb

    — sa·la·cious·ness noun

    my god but that woman is a sick sick twist

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  35. I am a very slow reader (250 wpm, 325 if I push it) and I spent an hour reading the comments on her blog. HER blog. Every last one of them that I read (not even the top half) were vehemently anti-Anne. And since she reads the comments on her blog (or did at least once), she’s gotta be feelin a little sumpin sumpin goin on. And it ain’t luvin.

    I have a daughter who is spending time guaranteeing free press rights and Anne has to use the work of my daughter to throw that poison around? I can assure you, my daughter will not be pleased when she learns of this, if she hasn’t already. (I’m gonna YIM her the link to here right now.)

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  36. 17.Also, someone call child services where AA lives… If she so desires a child-rapist be set free, her children can’t possibly be safe.

    While I support Patterico’s take 100% and vehemently disagree with Applebaum, this is not an appropriate action to endorse. (Nor joke about if that’s the case.)

    aunursa (0e5924)

  37. Chinatown was the story of a letcherous pervert who raped his own daughter while she was a teen, then rapes his grand daughter who is also his daughter.

    The old man was effectively beyond the reach of society by virtue of his position on the Calif water board, where he was busy screwing the public in as profound and permanent was as he had screwed his own family.

    Why is this considered a great movie?

    Because it’s an honest biography perhaps?

    papertiger (85e3ab)

  38. Papertiger,

    Polanski is a douche, but Chinatown is awesome.

    Fritz (e04596)

  39. Polanski is a douche, but Chinatown is awesome.

    Jack Nicholson?

    Is Fritz the name you’re going by today, Jack?

    papertiger (feba14)

  40. this is not an appropriate action to endorse. (Nor joke about if that’s the case.)

    I didn’t think it was beyond the pale or anything.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  41. Hey, watch The Two Jakes and then watch Chinatown again. There’s something special going on in the earlier film. I love film noir and this is the apotheosis of the genre.

    More to the point: Polanski is a douche. A child raping douche. Even talented artists can be douches. Being a douche doesn’t mean you’re not a talented artist.

    Heck, I even really liked The Ninth Gate (the book is better, but, you know, whatever). It’s a shame that a fellow who makes some pretty good movies turns out to be such a colossal douche.

    Like Michael Jackson. Some good tunes, but what a douche.

    Fritz (e04596)

  42. Jack Fritz, my personal take on it is Polamski is a douche who got lucky. It takes no particular skill to make a film.
    It’s mostly about connections within the industry.

    Sequals always suck.

    papertiger (7e1f91)

  43. So, she can find out where you work, but not what her husband is doing, and an editor put he husband’s info on her thingee, which she would logically have no knowledge of either. OK, moving on …
    Also, isn’t flight before sentencing, like, a bad thing?? A seperate felony?

    EdGi (bc4f55)

  44. Comment by papertiger — 9/29/2009 @ 10:13 pm

    Have you not seen Dark Knight???

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  45. It takes no particular skill to make a film.


    You’re kidding.

    Nobody is really that stupid, are they?

    What the kids say: “Oh, really?”

    Gah, I think I’ve been trolled. My apologies.

    Fritz (e04596)

  46. From the definition dept.

    Film noir is a cinematic term used primarily to describe stylish Hollywood crime dramas, particularly those that emphasize moral ambiguity and sexual motivation.

    That’s an artsy fartsy way of saying the director is a pervert, livin out his sick fantasy on the screen.

    papertiger (7e1f91)

  47. you know why the Two Jakes suffers by comparison?

    Because Jack isn’t a pervert.

    papertiger (7e1f91)

  48. Anyone with a videocamera can make a film. Anyone with lots of money can make a big-money film. Them’s the facts. Heck, look at all those B-movies. Big Chuck and Houlihan played double-features every Friday night on a Cleveland TV station. “Scary” walking carpets, “scared” actresses tripping on the carpet in the graveyard, paper plates stapled together and lit afire and thrown across the view of the camera (UFO), etc, ad infinitum.

    Anyone can make a film and many of those films actually get broadcast. Doesn’t make them any good.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  49. Anne is a “friend of the Right” so y’all should be a little nicer to her.

    JD (769f99)

  50. Applebaum, as a professional journalist, has an affirmative duty to ensure that all of the editors who might tinker with her copy — e.g., by adding links she now claims not to have seen or approved in the midst of the text she admits to having written — are fully aware of her potential conflicts of interest. Given that her husband is a Polish diplomat and that Polanski is, much more famously, a Polish citizen, she damn sure should have tacked a Post-It note or some explanatory email text to her editors to make sure that they were duly reminded of her husband’s potential connections to the case. Whether she knew he actually was involved is entirely irrelevant — she cannot possibly deny knowing that there was at least a possibility of a connection, and an ethical reporter would have alerted her editors.

    Applebaum, however, is no professional. I don’t care whether she’s “sympathetic to the right” or anything else. She sucks as a professional, politics notwithstanding.

    Beldar (c2138e)

  51. Beldar – I may have neglected to close my /sarc tags.

    JD (c86804)

  52. Patterico – I would suggest that it might be wise to put a permanent small disclaimer at the top of your sidebar, stating that your blog posts are not the position of your professional office. That would help to cover the gaps and maybe save you some hassle. Like you say, everyone who reads more than a post or two here knows all about your day job, but on the internet so many people just dip in to read one link, and then run off to broadcast their opinions of it.

    Gesundheit (254807)

  53. […] her mother’s permission to have her picture taken in a jacuzzi, let alone in the nude.  Patterico updates his readers on exactly what the transcript does show: Q. What happened out there after he […]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Applebaum blames the victim for the rape (e2f069)

  54. […] correct your posting” in which she demands that I link her defense . . . which I already linked. Here is my reply to her (I added the hyperlinks for this post): I did link to your entire comment, […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Applebaum Demands Correction From ME?? (e4ab32)

  55. The moral degradation of Anne Applebum. Rape is a crime regardless who committed it. The state of affairs of elitists are sad. This is like saying ordinary people are fair game for elitists to abuse and rape. David Letterman has no problem malicious enunciating rape to Palin’s daughter.

    myna (0000ec)

  56. Anne is completely beyond the pale.

    She’s claiming you’re offensive because it’s sexist? But she disclosed the relationship in other articles she wrote. Why? Wouldn’t that be exactly as offensive as suggesting she disclose it again this time? Her husband indeed is DEEPLY involved in this case.

    Dustin (0bdb72)

  57. Don’t be so sure Paglia is going to come out on the right side of this. She defended Woody Allen. She has the Romantic era notion of artistic privilege – the idea that the artist is above commom morality. If she blasts Polanski I’ll be extremely surprised.

    Paglia exhibits common sense at times, but it is mixed in with a lot of sentimental twaddle about the Greatness That Was The 60’s. Her attachment to the counterculture and the sexual revolution clouds her mind.

    Donna V. (f03d99)

  58. Since I know you’re reading this, Ms. Applebaum, I just wanted to say thank you. It’s not every day we see someone so stupid and pretentious destroy her own career so thoroughly.

    And feel free to quote me! 🙂

    Jim Treacher (796deb)

  59. […] far, far behind. Patterico has you dead to rights, and pounding the table and shouting won’t do you a darn bit of […]

    Moe Lane » Quit while you’re behind, Anne Applebaum. (da2344)

  60. […] originally claimed. In her testimony, the subject of permission does not come up at all. As I have previously reported, the full testimony on this subject is as follows: Q. What happened out there after he indicated he […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Anne Applebaum: Telling the Whole Truth Now Would Be Too Confusing (e4ab32)

  61. The reaction of the Ms Applebaum and others on the left…

    Wow. In your world, Anne Applebaum is on the left? We should get together over a beer and look for other spacio-temporal anomalies.

    Apart from a handful of Hollywood fatcats closing ranks around one of their own, I don’t know of anybody on “the left” defending Polanski.

    Steambadger (d32843)

  62. Dear Mr. Frey

    Deputy District DA in Los Angeles? Where do you find the free time…to blog about Polanski… or IS this little recreation…. all part of the job? Big Election year coming up, right?

    Shouldn’t you be making sure justice is served through a just system? Justice for the victim and Polanski cannot be won under a corrupt justice system then and now.

    I believe, two kinds of people when it comes to crime and punishment. There are those who understand that we are a nation of laws, and that our system does not serve vengeance but justice. And those who are like something out of the Old Testament, eye for an eye righteous, lying, arrogant fumers. I like to divide these groups into educated and ignorant

    David Wells did not lie in the documentary. The interview was done years ago according to the director. He signed a release. The film premiered in 2008 worldwide. No word from Wells on his big lie until now? Me thinks Cooley is worried he will not get elected again. Clearly the LAJD has no respect for its own system but as we know corruption breeds corruption. The fact that the majority of the PRESS is IGNORING a corrupt judge in 1977 and now a corrupt DA speaks volumes. The question is how much are you paying David Wells or at least tell us what he’s getting of it or were threats involved?

    RE: Probation Transcripts: So many case facts have been spinned by your pal Marcia Clark, I cannot even begin to list them all. However the documentary: Roman Polanski: Wanted & Desired interviews MAJOR participants from the case and witnesses to Rittenband’s judicial misconduct who outline this heinous conduct in the film. How interesting that the PRESS also FAILS to mention that Rittenband asked a news reporter (as well as David Wells ) “What he should do with Polanski?” Ethics Violation…big time.

    Also, please note that David Wells provided way too many SPECIFIC details. Lying? I don’t think so…. Let’s see if his current statement will hold up under a polygraph test, shall we?

    Also, how interesting that the prosecutor Roger Gunson, says in the film ( paraphrase ) ” had he been in Polanski’s shoes, he would have fled as well.” Yes, the highly respected MORMON PROSECUTOR!!!!. The Judicial misconduct was indeed….that bad…. Oh and did I mention the 2 PRETEND hearings that Rittenband concocted? The list of misconduct and ethics violations goes on and on and on.

    How interesting that the PRESS neglects to mention… that Rittenband was removed from the case.

    The LAJD says its been trying to get Polanski for 30 years. When questioned, they immediately scramble to produce a one page press release which they post on their website with some dates and blurbs over the years…. Anybody can write a press release. Let’s see the original papers.

    Seems evident that a corrupt justice department and a biased sensationalist News Media walk hand in hand these days… After all, an election year is coming up! Is it not?

    No wonder Polanski fled. Anyone in their right mind would and should.

    The question is… how can you can you condemn his corruption when you cannot condemn your own. What type of justice is corruption, dishonesty and finally hypocrisy ? It is he who thinks they are above the law, not Mr. Polanski.

    Kitty Kat (4f600a)

  63. […] this comment are identical to the comment that she spammed at my site (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » More Evidence That an Associate Producer of the Polanski Documentary Spammed Anonymous Comments Attacking Me (e4ab32)

  64. […] now, I have decided to approve a handful of them. You can read the comment here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. That’s eight instances of the same comment — and I deleted at […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Associate Producer of Polanski Documentary Spams This Blog With Multiple Anonymous Comments Attacking Me? (e4ab32)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1060 secs.