Whoopi: Polanski Did Not Commit “Rape-Rape”
Among the cretins in Hollywood to rise to the child-rapist Polanski’s defense, none is so cretinous as Whoopi Goldberg, who says that the anal rape the child experienced wasn’t “rape-rape”:
Not rape-rape? Polanski was indeed charged with “rape-rape” — although the indictment itself called it merely “rape” (and sodomy and numerous other crimes) — and the grand jury testimony certainly supports calling it “rape-rape.” Here are excerpts from the girl’s grand jury testimony:
A. I was going, “No, I think I better go home,” because I was afraid. So I just went and I sat down on the couch.
Q. What were you afraid of?
A. Him.
. . . .
Q. What happened then?
A. He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, “No,” you know, “keep away.”
But I was kind of afraid of him because there was no one else there.
. . . .
Q. What did he do when he placed his mouth on your vagina?
A. He was just like licking and I don’t know. I was ready to cry. I was kind of — I was going, “No. Come on. Stop it.” But I was afraid.
. . . .
Q. What happened after that?
A. He started to have intercourse with me.
Q. What do you mean by intercourse?
A. He placed his penis in my vagina.
Q. What did you say, if anything, before he did that?
A. 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.
I’ll leave off there before we get to the part where he rapes her anally and ejaculates in her anus.
Oh: Goldberg says Polanski thought: “You know what? This guy’s gonna give me 100 years in jail, I’m not staying.” I have read variants of this claim all over, mostly commonly that the judge was going to give Polanski 50 years. What?? The judge wasn’t even going to give him 50 extra days. He was going to give him 48 extra days. I get this from the motion filed by Polanski’s lawyers.
Paragraph 16 of the declaration of Polanski’s lawyer says: “Judge Rittenband announced to counsel that he now intended to send Mr. Polanski to prison for the second time under the following conditions: (1) that he serve 48 additional days in prison . . .” The other conditions were that there would be no further hearing, and that Polanski “deport himself.” Polanski had been sent to prison for a “90-day diagnostic” and had served only 42 days; the 48 days was meant to complete the 90 days.
This allegedly went against a previous in-chambers promise by the judge that the initial 42 days would be all Polanski would serve; however, Polanski did not plead based on the previous promise, which was made after the plea. That previous promise did not induce the plea, and when commentators say the judge “reneged” on a deal they are adopting the language of Polanski’s lawyers, who argue that the judge said he would make his decision after reading the probation department report and listening to the lawyers’ arguments. Instead, Polanski’s lawyers claim, the judge made up his mind before listening to the lawyers. Which, truth be told, judges always do; they just usually put on a better show of listening to us.
As always, this myth-busting is done in my private capacity, and I am not speaking for the District Attorney’s Office, or opining on what sentence Polanski should receive now. But I do think it’s important for myths to be corrected.
They really do respond to the inevitable dog whistle, apparently – and all this in less than 48 hours of his arrest.
Dmac (b905fa) — 9/29/2009 @ 7:37 amIt has been commented upon earlier that the Swiss action in this matter is payback to the President for the IRS’ actions re Swiss banking, in that the President is a prominant member of the celebrity community and it is a slap at him to arrest such a prominant member of the celebrity world. I would be more afraid that they could be playing a double game here: Payback for the banking problems that the IRS has given them (Polanski’s arrest), and a slap at the DoJ by releasing him to disappear once again into the EU countryside.
And, BTW Patterico, just when did you come to the conclusion that Whoppi is a world-class fool?
AD - RtR/OS! (b25b58) — 9/29/2009 @ 7:45 amSome of us reached that years ago.
Hmmmm… Would Caryn (“Whoopi’s” real name) be so nuanced and worldly about, oh, a right wing person doing this kind of stuff? Would that be “rape-rape”?
Hey, what are her thoughts about drunken womenizers letting a women drown in the dark?
Does the Left have any standards that are not nuanced by politics?
Seems more and more to be a rhetorical question.
Eric Blair (783baa) — 9/29/2009 @ 7:46 amThis is pretty much par for the course for Whoopi, and Teh View.
What is þhe difference between rape and rape rape?
JD (46cf2b) — 9/29/2009 @ 7:50 amWhoopi has always annoyed me, but I didn’t hate her until now.
This is unforgivable. This show should be off the air. You do not condone or promote rape on my public airwaves.
Imagine if a conservative actor instead of a liberal one had fled justice after raping a kid! Imagine how Whoopi would act if someone in the bush administration had just kissed a stranger’s young daughter.
and 48 days in prison for this crime makes me sick. Ten years is what I’d give him. and I would add on a multiyear sentence for fleeing.
Dustin (0bdb72) — 9/29/2009 @ 7:53 amShameless.
J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3) — 9/29/2009 @ 8:00 amWhoopi Goldberg is one person whose ugliness of soul is reflected in her ugliness of face, and that is not the usual case.
nk (df76d4) — 9/29/2009 @ 8:01 amHappyfeet, a bad influence you are.
nk (df76d4) — 9/29/2009 @ 8:03 amThat’s a pretty mild understatement by today’s sliding standards. CNN’s front page currently describes it as “allegedly gave her champagne and had sex with her”.
roy (d6fc79) — 9/29/2009 @ 8:07 amWhoopi is disgusting.
JD (a2cd1c) — 9/29/2009 @ 8:15 amOrwell seems to have been an optimist:
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 9/29/2009 @ 8:25 amWhat’s more disgusting, JD?
Whoopi and her moral disconnect, or getting drenched while watching a shutout? 😉
Hope you were able to have some fun Saturday.
DarthRove (e4e498) — 9/29/2009 @ 8:28 amWhoopi and the view broadcast from an insane asylum in any state.
Scrapiron (4e0dda) — 9/29/2009 @ 8:35 amDespicable.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/29/2009 @ 8:41 amCaryn Johnson is a complete idiot. I wonder what she’d be saying if it was her daughter that was “not rape-raped”?
PCD (1d8b6d) — 9/29/2009 @ 8:43 amIt’s become clear that the Swiss action in this matter came about because Polanski’s own lawyers were trying to use the argument that the LA DA had not been really trying to arrest Polanski.
So the DA found out a time Polanski planned to be in Switzerland, and had him arrested.
MayBee (4a75f2) — 9/29/2009 @ 8:46 amIt was what Polanski’s lawyers wanted, right?
Patterico,
Okay something is not computing with me. So Polanski fled and lived in exhile for years for the dread punishment of around a month and a half in prison?
i mean, look criminals do crazy things, especially celebrity criminals. But either that claim is wrong, that he faced alot more punishment than that, or Polanski is even more nuts than we thought. But really i am more dubious of the basic claim.
Either that or Pulanski actually thought it gave him some kind of glamour, if that is possible.
Or option number 4, maybe he had another reason for fleeing.
Btw, I assume Cali has some kind of law banning flight from justice, or something to that effect, that I equally assume he violated. What is the possibility of being convicted of that, and what is the punishment for it?
A.W. (e7d72e) — 9/29/2009 @ 9:11 amA.W- in the documentary “Wanted and Desired”, Polanski’s lawyers said he was afraid of what would happen to him in prison, especially since he would be going in as a child molester.
Also, Polanski was unsure of what he was headed for, sentence wise.
MayBee (4a75f2) — 9/29/2009 @ 9:24 amBut surely, multiple homes in Europe is better than even 1 more day in jail, isn’t it?
I wonder what she’d be saying if it was her daughter that was “not rape-raped”?
I’m pretty sure that if Whoopi herself was given a drug and anally penetrated against her objections, she would think she had been raped.
MayBee (4a75f2) — 9/29/2009 @ 9:31 amMayBee, Caryn would be grateful for the contact.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 9/29/2009 @ 9:40 amI can’t really blame Polanski for fleeing, even from a 48-day sentence. Do you know what happens to guys like him in prison?
/irony (this warning for the ironically challenged)
ras (20bd5b) — 9/29/2009 @ 9:48 amTime for application of “International jurisprudence” in american courts! I would allow the guardians/parents of the victim to elect either “blood money” or retribution. In the middle east the victims can agree to accept blood money to pay for the harm done to them or can reject this and exact revenge. While some may claim this is barbarous – I would promptly accuse such persons of racism and western bias.
Californio (ab1e88) — 9/29/2009 @ 9:49 amPredicted future moral pronouncements from Whoopi Goldberg:
– On John Edwards: “Now wait a second — he wasn’t cheating-cheating.”
– On Mackenzie Phillips: “Oh come on, it wasn’t incest-incest.”
– On Michael Vick: “Get real, it wasn’t dogfighting-dogfighting.” (Oh wait, that one already sorta happened.)
Abner Gromble (bb5a4d) — 9/29/2009 @ 9:51 amThey’ve got this Jean Valjean thing going and there is no stopping it. Polanski couldn’t leave 21st Century France and liberals can’t seem to leave 19th Century France.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:08 amI am shocked at that 48 day number. I had guessed we were talking about years in jail.
What is the over/under on how much time he spends in jail if returned?
Same facts, what would someone get who commits the crime today?
My guess is multiple years, but I am not an expert.
TomHynes (2e563b) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:15 amDo you know what happens to guys like him in prison?
Yes, but it wouldn’t be “rape-rape.”
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:27 amRemember: these are the same people who think that Phil Specter didn’t commit murder. The same people who think that O.J. didn’t kill Ron and Nicole. To liberals, anything is excusable if done by the “correct” people.
At least if a conservative had done something this heinous, we would ALL be calling for serious jail time and very very slippery soap in the shower.
otcconan (d58b1c) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:27 amMaybe we can convince Polanski that some of his movie memorabilia is being sold in Las Vegas hotel rooms.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:29 amPolanski was never convicted of forcible rape, if that’s what Goldberg means by “rape-rape”, so from a legal pov, she’s right.
But, that isn’t the issue here, the issue is is that he pled guilty to a charge of unlawful sex with a minor (which is a crime) and then fled the country to avoid punishment (which is another crime).
So, whether or not it was “rape-rape” really isn’t germane.
Dave Surls (a4c29d) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:34 amIf whatever media that puts forth the idea that Polanskis crime is “alleged” has a comments feature just paste in the portion of the vics testimony where she describes being penetrated vaginally and sodomized. That’ll do it.
glenn (757adc) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:34 amYeah, I just checked this out, and I think you are subtly wrong, Patterico. Here is the passage in question:
> 16. Judge Rittenband announced to counsel that he now intended to send Mr. Polanski to prison for the second time under the following conditions: (1) that he serve 48 additional days in prison; (2) that he would not be permitted to have a hearing on this additional sentence; (3) that he agree to waive his rights to a deportation hearing and agree to “voluntarily “deport himself;” and (4) that no hearing would be permitted until after the imposition of the prison sentence and that even more serious consequences could be expected if a hearing were held.
What I think they are saying, although unclearly, is that the 48 additional days in prison was to complete the 90 day diagnostic, but that then the final sentencing would come after that, assuming he didn’t voluntarily deport himself, and it would be severe.
But, and here is where Pulanski’s lawyers’ argument gets weird. As I understand it, according to them Pulanski was offered the chance to exhile himself instead of serving the larger sentence, but only after he completed the 90 day diagnostic. So again, something is not adding up. So it seems to me that the only difference between what Pulanski did and what he was asked to do, was 40 some odd days in prison.
And yes, I do recognize that child molesters get treated pretty badly in prison, but bluntly he had already made it halfway. I don’t get why a rational actor would consider that so horrible he had to commit the new crime of fleeing.
And don’t lump me in with Pulanski’s defenders. Not at all. Part of the reason why I find it hard to believe he would only get 90 days is because I can’t believe that any state, even Cali, would be so lenient on this creep. When I say it doesn’t make sense that he would plead a mere forty some odd days in prison, its not to say he was justified in running; I am just looking at his incentives.
So I think Patterico was a little wrong on this, and that there is something not adding up in his lawyers’ argument, unless you assume that Pulanski is a crazy celebrity. Which since he is, all bets are off, but we shouldn’t just assume that we can expect no rationality out of him. So if you believe his lawyers, this is all over 48 days in prison, which makes no sense.
Now I am not the lenient kind of guy. I feel that Kennedy v. LA was wrongly decided when they said that the death penalty couldn’t be applied to child rapists. But yeah, if that is all this is over, I say f— it. We say he can never come back to America, but we won’t go and get him, either. I mean cali is an economic basket case right now and a little triage is necessary. And that is assuming his lawyers are telling the truth, and it is ALWAYS a mistake to assume they are. Trust but verify, is the mantra. But seriously, let this cretin be inflicted on the French. You would rather have him serve 5 years and then be free to walk the streets over here? Applebaum complained he was denied the opportunity to cast his movies over here. But if he is going to have a casting couch, let it be in france.
As for Whoopi, I will offer this limited defense. Look we call what he pled to “statutory rape” for a reason. It’s a signal that what he pled to was nothing more than sex with a minor, as opposed to doing so without consent, etc. Mind you, I am not saying that Pulanski engaged in consensual sex. I for one believe the girl. But he was officially only convicted of mere sex.
So, I think Whoopi was trying to make that distinction. And I think if we got very honest about it, we would recognize a little more nuance here. For instance, is it always wrong to sleep with a 17 year old girl? What if the boy is 18?
The reality is that this is one of those criminal laws that casts a very wide net and I think with the specific expectation that prosecutors would exercise a great deal of discretion. So a 14 year old boy and a 13 year old girl having sex is generally ignored. But a 44 year old man and a 13 year old girl is not. And further it allows you to throw the bastard away for the non-consensual, or even forcible rape, without having to prove lack of consent or force. I mean the discussion in a statutory rape case like this is just this: “did you have sex with her?” “Yes.” “And she was 13 at the time?” “Yes.” “Okay, then you go to jail.” End of discussion.
And I have long suspected that part of the purpose of the statutory rape scheme is to protect children from the abusive cross examinations. If consent is irrelevant, for instance, than everything about her sexual past is equally irrelevant. Of course in reality the children are hardly shielded at all, but I still suspect that this is the idea.
So that seems to be the context whoopi is coming from. We do draw a distinction between rape and “statutory rape.” When it is just “rape” end of story, you are a bastard. But if it is statutory then you ask follow up questions. How old was she? How old were you? And did she consent. If the answer is something like she was 17, I was 18, and she consented, then a lot of people will say it actually isn’t such a big deal. Frankly I wouldn’t.
The problem that Whoopi ignores is that the answers to those questions in Pulanski’s case are all wrong. She was 13, he was forty-something, and it was not consensual. So assuming Goldberg is making that statutory v. non-consensual distinction (big assumption), then Goldberg is still getting her facts wrong (or her morality screwed up) and she is still ignoring that even if there was consent, Polanski is a major creep.
So once again, there is a limited defense, but it really doesn’t help her much.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:41 amWHY ARE LIBERALS DEFENDING THIS SLEAZE???
JEA (53fe4f) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:43 amI think part of the reason Hollywood rallies around “its own” in these situations is to maintain as high a protective barrier as possible for all celebs.
If Polanski can be punished, however deservedly, then they can all be punished when they deserve it, and we can’t have that, can we?
ras (20bd5b) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:46 am“Polanski was never convicted of forcible rape, if that’s what Goldberg means by ‘rape-rape’, so from a legal pov, she’s right.”
Bullsh*t: Polanski admitted to drugging her.
pst314 (672ba2) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:50 amWhatever the reason he fled was, his lawyers could have worked it out with the judge and prosecutor (including the added charges for fleeing — there are such, aren’t there?) I would recommend that he not talk about the court’s mercy in further discussions, I don’t think there would be any there.
Ob ABBA quote:
Of course, this was written after he raped and fled ….
htom (412a17) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:57 amPolanski is just a sleaze who drugged and committed rape-rape on a 13-year-old girl. He has no real worries over being hurt in jail because he is too famous and would be put in a single-man cell in a secure area. That’s too bad, because if he was in with other inmates he would soon learn what anal rape feels like which would be an appropriate lesson for him.
Bart998 (e9a2e5) — 9/29/2009 @ 11:01 am“I for one believe the girl.”
There’s a reasonable doubt in my mind that her story is entirely true.
As far as the issue of force goes, it’s basically a he said/she said. She claimed he forced her, he claimed it was consensual, and that’s pretty much all the evidence there is. That being the situation, I couldn’t find Polanski guilty of forcible rape if were forced to make that decision based on what I know at the present.
But, there seems to be no question that he engaged in sexual intercourse with a minor, and that’s against the law. There also seems to be little question that he fled the country to avoid being sentenced and that’s also against the law.
Dave Surls (a4c29d) — 9/29/2009 @ 11:16 amHe didn’t rape-rape her. He assraped her. After drugging her. And taking nude photos of her. And forcing himself upon her. There is not a context in the world where he did not rape her, statutory or otherwise.
Darth – This is more disgusting. I ama football fan first, and that is a great experience to watch a game there, even in a monsoon.
JD (15293c) — 9/29/2009 @ 11:17 amWhat’s amusing is Polanski’s lawyers are alleging Judge Rittenbrand was worried about getting hosed by the press, then argue the appellate court should take the documentary seriously because the press thinks it’s an important film.
Brian Moore (af5d25) — 9/29/2009 @ 11:20 amdave
Well, frankly, its been some 30 some odd years and the quality of evidence gets worse, not better with time (with the big exception of new testing like DNA).
And its irrelevant. he plead down to mere sex type statutory rape. the judge would be improper to consider the possibility that it was nonconsensual. but i still say throw the book at him.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 9/29/2009 @ 11:23 ambut
quasimodo (4af144) — 9/29/2009 @ 11:24 amIsn’t it amazing when women come out to defend sexual predators and perverts, as long as they are artists or liberals? Kennedy, Clinton, Jackson, Polanski…
I am gobsmacked.
Peg C. (48175e) — 9/29/2009 @ 11:37 am“…but i still say throw the book at him.”
Under the circumstances, were I the judge passing sentence, I’d also be inclined to toss the book at him.
Personally, I doubt that he will do any time, but I think he ought to.
Dave Surls (a4c29d) — 9/29/2009 @ 11:47 amdave
agreed. i mean i am the kind of person who was shocked that paris hilton got like a month and that this was considered only slightly more lenient than normal. sigh.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 9/29/2009 @ 12:05 pmA.W., you accurately quote the lawyer but I think you misread the import of it. I believe I accurately characterized it but invite anyone interested to follow the link and read the declaration for themselves.
Patterico (17f722) — 9/29/2009 @ 12:14 pmThe Hollywood crowd defends Polanski and expects us to follow their lead in politics. I was going to go to movie this weekend, but I think I’ll stay home instead.
tyree (60c95a) — 9/29/2009 @ 12:22 pmPatterico, well we will agree to disagree on that, but i think we can both agree that the lawyer is less than clear.
Let’s just hope i am right. i don’t want this idiot to serve only forty some odd days. and if i was the LA DA, i would convict him of some kind of flight crime, too.
Btw, i know you don’t want to comment on what he should recieve, but i would be curious as to 1) what is the maximum under the statute and 2) what is he actually likely to get. if you don’t feel that crosses a line.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 9/29/2009 @ 12:22 pmI love it when liberals speak their minds. Goldberg is as ugly on the inside as she is on the outside.
Terry Gain (4045b4) — 9/29/2009 @ 12:27 pmI think Whoopi is acting like a stupid tw*t-tw*t here, but she is definitely an improvement on Rosie on my nosie-nosie.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/29/2009 @ 12:35 pmActually, I shouldn’t say he won’t do any time.
From what I’ve read, there doesn’t seem to be much chance that the Swiss will let him out on bail, so that means he’s likely to spend months in a Swiss lock-up fighting the extradition.
Don’t know that that’s going to happen for sure, but I hope it’s true.
Polanksi is a scumbag, IMO, and he deserves whatever he gets.
Dave Surls (7cc926) — 9/29/2009 @ 1:06 pmPatterico – Skimming through the motion filed by Polanski’s lawyers last year which you linked above, it doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense for the D.A. to go through the effort of extraditing the man from Europe if they are in agreement with his lawyers that the outcome will just be to have a judge drop any additional penalties against Polanski. Polanski could return voluntarily and get that done, but either way it creates the media circus he wants to avoid.
Something ain’t right about those motions.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/29/2009 @ 1:07 pmI’m pretty sure that if Whoopi herself was given a drug and anally penetrated against her objections, she would think she had been raped.
Comment by MayBee — 9/29/2009 @ 9:31 am
Even though rape is a crime of violence, and not an expression of sexual desire, I can’t imagine the hideous haag objecting to what may be a once in a lifetime opportunity.
The rapist would have to ask himself, “Do I hate women enough to justify doing Whoopi Goldberg”? More likely, he would simply turn away and seek salvation.
Matador (ad4464) — 9/29/2009 @ 1:08 pmThe real victim in this case is the State of California. It did not get it’s pound of flesh. The time has come to pay the piper.
Dr. K (eca563) — 9/29/2009 @ 1:10 pmDave – Since you brought up scumbags, Polanski is prolly a big fan of Doc Weasel’s blog, what with all the teen pooter pictures he posts.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/29/2009 @ 1:12 pmI ain’t sayin’ that all Democrats are defenders of Polanski. But all defenders of Polanski are Democrats.
KB (5a6552) — 9/29/2009 @ 1:18 pmWhat does Ted Danson think of the non-rape rape? White men cannot jump and Ted proves white men are blind also (re: doing the nasty repeatedly with Whoopi). I condemn myself as racist.
How would Obama feel about his own daughters getting not raped-raped in the anus?
aoibhneas (cebe63) — 9/29/2009 @ 1:41 pmObama’s kids do not have one fucking thing to do with this.
JD (1e6306) — 9/29/2009 @ 1:53 pmWhat kind of sentence is Polanski facing if he is extradited back to the US? How many potential charges? What are the minium and maximun times he could face in jail?
BT (78b929) — 9/29/2009 @ 2:06 pmOnce upon a time Polanski, looking for a quick romanski, doffed his soiled underpantski, drugged a girl and climbed aboard.
As her anus struck his fancy, deep he drove his rigid lance-ski, shooting gobs of sticky man-seed in the teen he hankered for.
Faced with jail, our man Roman, he jumped his bail and left this land, he set his sail for sunny France, he fled the grasp of prudish laws.
But now the cops have cuffed his hands, we here in Hollywood demand, release from custody this man whose feted films we so adore.
And with a shout of “Yes You Canski,” good Barack will set our man free, repeating words said to Iran-ski,
Edgar Allen Poe Lanski (4f6d4a) — 9/29/2009 @ 2:12 pmQuoth Obama, “Sin no more!”
[…] Patterico explains what really happened. Oh: Goldberg says Polanski thought: “You know what? This guy’s gonna give me 100 years in jail, I’m not staying.” I have read variants of this claim all over, mostly commonly that the judge was going to give Polanski 50 years. What?? The judge wasn’t even going to give him 50 extra days. He was going to give him 48 extra days. I get this from the motion filed by Polanski’s lawyers. […]
Half of a 90 day sentence « Something should go here, maybe later. (054690) — 9/29/2009 @ 2:17 pmMaybe he can come back, get sentenced, have some “doctor” diagnose him with cancer, and be released to Libya.
JD (1e6306) — 9/29/2009 @ 2:21 pmShe said rape twice.
Ken (c97a0c) — 9/29/2009 @ 2:24 pmI was wondering…
If Polanski is returned to the US, and he for some reason withdraws his guilty plea (since it seems that the victim doesn’t want to testify, and wouldn’t that make his life easy), could the ADA get her grand jury testimony read into the record based on some sort of “undue influence” stemming from the settlement between her and her “not rape-rapeist”?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 9/29/2009 @ 2:25 pmWith the way Whoopi defended the act, I must conclude in the enviroment she grew up in, forced sex with 13 year olds must not be that unusual. I guess she miss the part where the victim said no and told the perp to stop. This is wrong in so many ways.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (1cdbd5) — 9/29/2009 @ 2:30 pm@59 E.A.P.L.
Very clever. Thank you.
Terry Gain (4045b4) — 9/29/2009 @ 2:32 pm“What kind of sentence is Polanski facing if he is extradited back to the US?”
You’ll have to ask the attorneys about that one. I’ve read that at the time the crime was committed, the maximum sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor was 20 years in state prison, but I haven’t seen the penal code, so I’m not sure if that’s correct.
Currently, the maximum sentence would be four years in state prison and a $25,000 fine.
That’s not counting possible punishment for fleeing the country to avoid serving his sentence, of course.
“If Polanski is returned to the US, and he for some reason withdraws his guilty plea…”
I think it’s a little too late for that. His conviction is pretty much a done deal.
Dave Surls (7cc926) — 9/29/2009 @ 2:52 pmAre the concepts of conviction and pleading interchangeable?
JD (0b1bd3) — 9/29/2009 @ 2:57 pm“Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution” is a Federal offense punishable by a fine, and/or five years imprisonement.
AD - RtR/OS! (0be017) — 9/29/2009 @ 3:19 pmBTW, Michael Medved, on his radio show today, opined that pursueing extradition would be a waste of money and manpower on such a trivial matter.
AD - RtR/OS! (0be017) — 9/29/2009 @ 3:22 pmGood to know Michael is looking out for his Hollyweird friends.
Well, this is an extreme example of flight. dude lived it up too. Five years in prison for flight is a suitable sentence.
Dustin (0bdb72) — 9/29/2009 @ 3:22 pmLike many of you, I’ve always been amazed at how liberals will defend/excuse any type of behavior, as long as the perpetrator is a politician who professes the “proper” beliefs (Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy), or an “artist” (Roman Polanski, Ike Turner).
Wait a minute. What’s Ike got to do with it?
Well, a couple of months ago I was visiting a friend when the movie “What’s Love Got to Do With It?” came on the tube. A lively debate soon ensued: Is Ike still alive? I hopped on my friend’s computer, did a search, and quickly learned that, sho nuff, Ike has passed into the Great Beyond.
Although I consider myself a student of rock and roll history, I confess I don’t know much about Ike, so I sat and read some of the stuff that popped up on the computer. One of the items was from, of all places, the Huffington Post. Penned by a female movie critic who used to write for LA Weekly, this heart-felt tribute to Ike can be summed up thusly: It does not matter how often or how badly Ike whooped Tina’s ass, because he was a musical genius, dammit! (Read the entire piece here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-morgan/ike-turner-19312007_b_76653.html )
Another subject of this unconditional liberal hero worship is Jim Brown. The NFL legend has a LONG history of domestic violence … and yet, he remains a “go to” guy when the media wants a “thoughtful” comment on issues related to race and/or professional sports.
Obviously, none of us are perfect. But there are faults, and then there are FAULTS. Unless, of course, you’re a liberal.
Bubba Maximus (456175) — 9/29/2009 @ 3:30 pmBeldar’s paraphrase of Polanski’s lawyers’ motion:
I cannot imagine that a lawyer in Texas could file such a motion without being ridiculed by everyone who read it, including the judge.
I hope that the judicial system in California is not yet so depraved that the “considered judgment” — meaning one-sided, ill-informed, hyperbolic, highly spun, and culpably misleading judgment — of Hollywood producers doesn’t displace the considered application of clear law to clear facts, under which Polanski should do hard time in prison.
Beldar (b772bf) — 9/29/2009 @ 3:34 pmDear Beldar: We’re depraved, because we’re deprived!
AD - RtR/OS! (0be017) — 9/29/2009 @ 3:43 pm“We’re depraved, because we’re deprived.”
With appologies to Steven Sondheim.
AD - RtR/OS! (0be017) — 9/29/2009 @ 3:47 pm“I hope that the judicial system in California is not yet so depraved…”
Man, talk about wishful thinking!
😉
Dave Surls (7cc926) — 9/29/2009 @ 4:08 pmWhoopi must be on Quaaludes herself. What part of the victim’s repeated assertions of “no” does she not understand? I’m not a big proponent of statutory rape laws (because I think post-pubescent minors can consent meaningfully to non-authority figures), but this was rape rape.
Mona (11b3c2) — 9/29/2009 @ 4:17 pmIn general, people named Mona scare me.
JD (870a39) — 9/29/2009 @ 4:26 pmIt’s the rape-rape-rape that you really have to watch out for.
Nobody (40298b) — 9/29/2009 @ 5:07 pmI feel that we are about at that point that any discussion involving Whoppi deserves:
AD - RtR/OS! (0be017) — 9/29/2009 @ 5:44 pmOur complete inattention!
From Whoopi,
“We’re a different kind of society, we see things differently … would I want my 14-year-old having sex with somebody? Not necessarily, no.”
This is reprehensible: Whoopi is actually attempting to equate the sodomizing of a 13 year old with a 14 year old having sex.
Wow. Just wow.
Dana (863a65) — 9/29/2009 @ 5:49 pmI like how it was “not necessarily”, and not, you know, “no i wouldn’t”, as if there are some situations where a 14 should definitely have sex.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 9/29/2009 @ 6:05 pm…would I want my 14-year-old having sex with somebody? Not necessarily, no.”
“Not necessarily”????
The more she speaks, the more absurd her “views”.
MD in Philly (d4f9fa) — 9/29/2009 @ 6:05 pmLOOK, if Whoopi’s 14 year old has pancreatic cancer, and is the last male alive after the Iranian nuclear holocaust, but is surrounded by fertile women, then I would not necessarily oppose the sex either.
That is obviously what she meant.
Dustin (0bdb72) — 9/29/2009 @ 6:07 pmIf the survival of the human race depends on the genes of Whoopi, I say “let us die out”.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 9/29/2009 @ 6:09 pm[…] with the powerful, rich Hollywood types who defend child rapist Roman Polanski. Subscribe to blog feed. « Obama Has Reagan […]
Living it up in Europe, or… | PoliPundit.com (6b63ef) — 9/29/2009 @ 6:11 pmPoor Guinan. It must have been some kind of transporter accident that scrambled her brain.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 9/29/2009 @ 6:24 pmIt is getting so that you don’t hire a lawyer anymore for justice. You hire a hitman.
PCD (2870d5) — 9/29/2009 @ 6:55 pm[…] Well, then, Mr. Polanski, you should have gone to trial. If you’re right, any jury would doubtless have approved of your actions in drugging and anally raping a 13-year-old. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Polanski in 1979: Everyone Wants to Fuck Young Girls! (e4ab32) — 9/29/2009 @ 7:42 pmGirls and boys who have hit puberty have hormones that drive sex. So, I personally would not criminalize consensual sex after that biological point has been reached, with one exception: Authority Figures such as teachers, step-parents, and the like.
But Polanski plied this girl with drugs and alcohol — her age should be an exacerbating factor. But, an 18-year-old having consensual sex with a 13-year-old is quite different. Polanski was in his 40s, and drugged his victim, who kept saying “no.”
Polanski needs to face the music.
Mona (11b3c2) — 9/29/2009 @ 8:27 pmMy first why, oh why, do we have to tolerate this crap that obvious trolls such as aoibhneas and bubba maximus spew? I’m reserving Mona’s comments for a bit, but something smells wrong with it, too.
Second, liberals such as Whoopi have to do a delicate tap-dance in regards to people who they admire that commit heinous crimes. After all, she is a mother and grandmother of women. However, the groupthink of liberals is very strong.
I suspect that if the perpetrator of child “rape-rape” had been John Milius, she would be singing a different tune.
That pretty much says it all about uneducated Hollywood.
And I mean “uneducated” in a very real sense.
Ag80 (592691) — 9/29/2009 @ 8:52 pm[…] who linked to A.C. Grayling’s piece on the Polanski controversy. Patterico has already written a ton about this subject, but I thought that Grayling’s take might be instructive, if for no […]
The Jury Talks Back » If the offence is heinous (e4ab32) — 9/29/2009 @ 9:10 pm[…] at months in prison in Switzerland if he is not released on bail — slightly more than the 48 extra days that crazy judge threatened him with back in the day. But his lawyer has another idea: The director does own a residence in the Swiss resort town of […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Polanski May Be Locked Up for Months (e4ab32) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:05 pmThe next thing Polanski’s supporters will say is that since there was a cash payment (settlement)to the girl that actually what occurred was a case of Prostitution by the girl and that in all actuality the girl should be serving the time not Polanski. Whoopi what planet do you live on?
Mike (28bf4a) — 9/30/2009 @ 7:54 am[…] and on the discussion of the judge putting Polanski away for 100 years, here is how Patterico’s Pontifications addresses it: I have read variants of this claim all over, mostly commonly that the judge was going […]
Polanski, Whoopi and Rape Apologism « After Silence (b093c9) — 9/30/2009 @ 8:22 am[…] One could argue that maybe these people don’t know all the facts in the case, which is why they’re defending a guy who sodomized a 13-year-old as she begged him to stop. But Whoopi Goldberg’s shameful performance on yesterday’s episode of The View is magical, if only because I found myself taking sides WITH Sherri. You can watch it (and some pretty great Polanski myth debunking) here. […]
Entertainment… Weakly. » Blog Archive » Let’s Try This Again, Shall We? (088cf6) — 9/30/2009 @ 8:25 amMaybe mona wants to revisit the “No means NO!” argument?
Hey, you Polanski apologists, how about giving Polanski a weekend, a supply of ‘ludes, a case of Dom Perignon, and Obama’s daughters for the weekend. You still think he should be free?
PCD (1d8b6d) — 9/30/2009 @ 8:26 am[…] now you’ve heard everyone rant about Whoopi Cushion-Goldberg’s idiotic claim that Roman Polanski’s crime wasn’t […]
damnum absque injuria » On Rape-Rape (490ac4) — 9/30/2009 @ 8:26 pmShame on Whoopi Goldberg. I know that she has a grand-daughter who is 13 (or close to it). How could she be so stupid/ignorant/cavalier. What is “rape rape” in the context of a child?
This is both backward and scary. What kind of people think this way? Certainly no one that I respect.
lisa gray (1f1efc) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:30 pmShame on Whoopi Goldberg. I know that she has a grand-daughter who is 13 (or close to it). How could she be so stupid/ignorant/cavalier. What is “rape rape” in the context of a child?
This is both backward and scary. What kind of people think this way? Certainly no one that I respect.
lisa gray (1f1efc) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:30 pmHmmm. I saw “Sister Act 2.” Is it like “no talent no talent“?
Eric Blair (184ac1) — 10/1/2009 @ 9:35 pm<whopee comes from the same culture that o j came from –also opra winfrey–they think men beat up woman –but they dont kill them–thats why the jury did not believe he did it–they r used to seeing that–whoppee was molested so was opra–to them in not so bad–we know better—follow the law -not the liberals
helen mccarney (4e0dda) — 10/2/2009 @ 1:17 amDear 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) — 10/3/2009 @ 11:37 pm[…] this 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 […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Associate Producer of Polanski Documentary Spams This Blog With Multiple Anonymous Comments Attacking Me? (e4ab32) — 10/4/2009 @ 1:35 amYes comment #22, I know what would happen to guys like him in prison. Other prisoners would do to him what he did to this young 13 year old girl (I think they call it sodomy). Seems fair to me. I wonder how many months it was since this girl was just a 12 year old kid.
Ken (f9ce99) — 10/25/2009 @ 10:35 pm[…] His arrest provoked a rare moment of agreement between conservative and liberal pundits: Polanski’s defenders in the artistic community are a bunch of moral retards. […]
» Ghost Writer: A Brief Review (710aab) — 3/1/2010 @ 9:06 pm