Disturbingly, some are up in arms, claiming that - even though Polanski performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on a frightened girl he had plied with Champagne and a Quaalude - the incident should be forgotten. One such person is Tom O'Neill, the senior editor of In Touch Weekly. On September 28, during a CNN interview, O'Neill first claimed that Polanski "seduced" the young girl when it's obvious after reading her grand jury testimony that she was raped. Also, during that same interview, O'Neil argued that Polanski shouldn't be extradited to the U.S. for a trial, saying:
It's mind boggling why they're still pursuing this. I thought back in 2003 this was pretty much resolved when he was trying to get to Hollywood for the Oscars; his, uh, victim publicly went on Larry King and forgave him. It looked like a deal may have even been worked out with the courts behind the scenes, but he didn't pursue it. Then in 2005 an international warrant for his arrest was issued, which is different than just an American-based one. And we found out this case is still going on. And now this arrest at, uh, Zurich. It just seems that the prosecutors in Los Angeles won't let go these many years later.
O'Neill, immersed in the world of celebrity gossip, can't believe the law would hold a celebrity to the same standards as regular people. But Polanski is finally facing the consequences of raping a young girl. All his fame, his Oscars and his wealth don't override the law. Nor do the intervening decades or his victim's reported forgiveness.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It's no more mind-boggling
September 28, 2009 - 13:17 ET by G. MayIt's no more mind-boggling than Massachussetts voters considering worse crimes as nothing more than trivial matters of misconduct.
Ask yourself this question
September 28, 2009 - 13:23 ET by moderncommentaries83Were Polanski a Roman Catholic priest accused of the same crime, who fled to France for the past 30-plus years, would the reaction on the lefty-blogosphere be the same?
Lots of priests (justly or unjustly) accused of sexual misconduct (dating back to the 60s and 70s) didn't get to live the high life in gay Paree for three decades - as well they shouldn't. But lots of them are dead and unable to defend themselves or face justice.
Yet I don't see people calling such cases trivial. Because they aren't. And neither is Polanski's.
But, then again, I forget - the only crime in this day and age is to take a vow of celibacy for religous reasons. Sleeping with 13 year old girls isn't a big deal (just ask ACORN)...it's just an "alternative lifestyle."
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Well, mc...the problem is
September 28, 2009 - 13:37 ET by motherbeltWell, mc...the problem is that those priests took that vow and preached celibacy, and then broke it. Polanski took no such vow, and never advocated celibacy, so he's not a hypocrite!!
\sarc off
That is the big sin to liberals: they hypocrisy.
And then O'Neill chimes in with the liberals' second favorite excuse: it's "old news" now. Time to "move on."
modernc: I suppose it could
September 28, 2009 - 13:38 ET by QueenMummodernc: I suppose it could be argued that clergy are by definition held to a higher standard. Just a thought.
However you are correct in that the crimes, in and of themselves, are deserving of equal justice. And it's hard to wrap my head around the adulation for people like Polanski. He never did anything so worthwhile for mankind that there should be any thought that he be excused for his crime.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
That is the heart of it
September 28, 2009 - 13:42 ET by ReaverExactly. These are the same people who will make a cause celebe out of a priest molesting a child twenty or thirty years ago but they can’t believe that the law is still pursuing Polanski. The hypocrisy is obvious and disturbing. There is no statute of limitations on child molestation nor should there be.
I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. - Hunter S. Thompson
Re: Statutes
September 28, 2009 - 14:09 ET by moderncommentaries83Actually, I'm not sure about your comments on statutes. Here in my homestate we have a pretty high-profile case of a swim instructor, Daniel Acker, who molested LOTS of kids (boys mostly) for years. He's just pled no contest but I had heard on the radio that some of the cases wouldn't have been charged against him because the statute of limitations had expired.
And I do agree to priests having a higher standard, but most abusers ARE attracted to such positions of authority. As for hypocrisy, yes, you're exactly right because if the vow of celibacy priests took was the reason they abused then there'd be no abuse (because anyone who didn't take a vow of celibacy, by that logic, wouldn't be a sexual abuser). So it's not the abuse (because non-celibate clergy, swim instructors, teachers, average Joes can sexually abuse) of children that makes people mad, it's the vow of celibacy!
Also, wasn't Polanski married to Sharon Tate when she was killed (along with their unborn son) by Manson's whackjob clan? How long before someone uses the stress of Tate's death as a reason for his behavior?
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Statutes
September 28, 2009 - 14:14 ET by BlondeI'm no lawyer (Jer, where are you?) but the difference is Polanski was prosecuted and convicted thirty-some years ago, and skipped before appearing for a court-ordered psychiatric examination prior to incarceration. So I would imagine not only does any statute of limitations not apply, but if we manage to get this jerk extradited from Switzerland, he'll be further prosecuted for jumping his bond and fleeing the country (and perhaps other charges as well).
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the death penalty in child abuse cases. Years ago, I was a controller for a non-profit that dealt with abused children....the stories I heard were horrific, and some of these kids never, ever get over it. Give the pervs something to think about.
I hope he fails, too.
J
September 28, 2009 - 14:32 ET by MrShyI think you need a REAL lawyer. :)
I tease.
Shy
September 28, 2009 - 14:51 ET by BlondeIf I needed a REAL lawyer, I'd ask Jer to point me in the right direction. Jer's a good guy, even if he's left of center.
I hope he fails, too.
Duh. That makes
September 28, 2009 - 14:49 ET by moderncommentaries83Duh.
That makes sense.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
moderncom....
September 28, 2009 - 14:54 ET by BlondeNo worries, I didn't post that as a "gotcha"....I read up on Polanski on Wiki to flush a discussion on another thread. I remembered this convicted pedophile winning an Oscar a couple of years back....and the typically leftist Hollywood crowd cheering for the creep.
Otherwise, who cares? The next thing I want to hear about Roman Polanski is that he's doing hard time.
I hope he fails, too.
I Already Did In The First Polanski Post...
September 28, 2009 - 23:41 ET by The7Sticks"Step 1.) I've concluded that Polanski was mentally unstable at the time he committed the deed of child rape, an instability that was triggered by the domino effect of Charles Manson follower Susan Atkins brutally murdering his pregnant wife Sharon Tate (I don't want to get into this unborn baby being murdered business because this is a different argument.) Oddly enough, the timing of his arrest seems too convenient, as that Manson follower Atkins died in prison just two-to-three days before the arrest. Call me a tinfoil-hat wearer, but I smell a conspiracy here."
And I still stand by it. And I must say that all of you who are paranoid about some alleged child-predator epidemic might also be suffering from some mental disorder that makes you believe there must be a child predator epidemic. That's why you are willing to bankrupt California by passing those ridiculous Jessica's Laws and force taxpayers like me to foot the bill for shoddy ankle bracelets and a sex-offender registry (which might eventually be populated by children engaging in that stupid sexting craze if you all had your way.)
I'll give the liberals this: they aren't attempting to be the least bit pious over human sexual norms when they violate them, while the conservatives do the most bizarre and creepy sexual fetishes while claiming CHASTITY! ABSTINENCE! EXCELSIOR! (Sorry, I just like to say the word "excelsior.")
Consent is the sole criterion of the good
September 29, 2009 - 08:22 ET by moderncommentaries83Another blogger I respect said that basically today's liberals see that any sex - be it with a minor, an animal, a corpse - is okay so long as there's "consent"...but obviously, the outrage over Polanski's arrest proves my blogger friend's other prediction is 100% correct:
Consent will cease to be the last remaining criteria of sexual mores. Anything that stands in the way of someone getting their jollies (even the will and consent of another) will soon be a violation of one's "rights" and prosecuted accordingly.
Part of me vaguely remembers, years ago, hearing someone argue that if I - a heterosexual woman - denied the advances of a lesbian, I should be guilty of a crime of discrimination. I can't remember where, I admit that I don't have a source, but this was way back when I was still liberal (and I kind of agreed with it - which is why I remember).
Now that I'm conservative, what the hell was I thinking?!?
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
...
September 28, 2009 - 14:15 ET by EugeniaWell, mc, you took the words right off my fingers. :) Except you wrote it much more eloquently and charitably.
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything."
-- GK Chesterton
Or if Roman Polanski were a
September 28, 2009 - 17:15 ET by samhermanmdOr if Roman Polanski were a suspected war criminal, the French would be out to have him publicly hanged even before he was tried.
The comment on another article had a French official saying he could not believe that a 76-year old man could be treated in this manner. Oh really? How about the way he treated his victim? He was over 40 years old when the crime was committed and he said that he did it. He fled rather than serving out his punishment for his heinous activity. Hopefully justice will be served and he will be locked away with the rest of the animals in cages.
Liberalism
September 28, 2009 - 13:27 ET by Jerry MackNo one ever gave a better explanation of who Liberals are or what Liberalism is than O'Neill!
Come on down and claim your prize...
September 28, 2009 - 13:29 ET by upcountrywaterHow many Police depts. and other law enforcement folk, continue to round up the STUPID... with this very tactic...
Roman, enjoy your stay in Zurich...
State controlled health care is Tort Reform.
"...his, uh, victim
September 28, 2009 - 13:35 ET by mattm"...his, uh, victim publicly...forgave him."
Uh, so what?
Yeah, how conveniently they
September 28, 2009 - 13:41 ET by motherbeltYeah, how conveniently they forget that in cases of statutory rape, the victim could have agreed willingly at the time and it means nothing.
That's why it's called "statutory"....because the girl was not of legal age to consent!
She may forgive him now, (How nice for him!) but that has nothing to do with the law.
Exactly, matt. Good people
September 28, 2009 - 13:44 ET by QueenMumExactly, matt. Good people often forgive those who have perpetrated crimes against them. It's a matter of cleansing the soul of lingering hatred. It doesn't satisfy justice nor does it negate the right of the state or the victim to see the perpetrator punished.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
...
September 28, 2009 - 14:18 ET by EugeniaForgiving someone does not mean that a perpetrator does not still have to face the law. One has nothing to do with the other.
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything."
-- GK Chesterton
Why we are still pursuing this ....
September 28, 2009 - 13:38 ET by CrashBecause we are a nation of laws and Polanski is a fugitive in a criminal case involving a minor. Plus, he isn't a Kennedy.
I presume
September 28, 2009 - 13:55 ET by Chaitealoverthat O'Neil does not have any daughters or sisters. If he did, he'd understand.
Chai
“When all government...in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided...” Thomas Jefferson
Regardless of daughters or
September 28, 2009 - 13:59 ET by HockeyKidRegardless of daughters or sisters, he clearly has no brain cells. Nor moral fiber.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
At least one daughter ...
September 28, 2009 - 14:01 ET by Carolyn PlocherUnfortunately, I believe he has at least one daughter, Morgane. I'm not sure of any others.
http://articles.lati...
This is disgusting. Truly.
September 28, 2009 - 13:56 ET by MazziThis is disgusting. Truly. I remember reading the court documents and testimony, and this poor girl was clearly sexually assaulted by Polanski, as well as let down by her own mother (who in effect "sold" her to the crusty old pervert).
Sick stuff, but some people just don't "get it". They seem to think that because Polanski has avoided punishment all these years, that we should just forget about it? I say we need to slap a few extra years on for being a fugitive. Maybe 2 extra years for each year he was free. PLUS whatever he gets for the rape.
Good riddance to the sick bastage. Hope he enjoys jail.
"I would rather be historically accurate than politically correct" ~ My husband's T-Shirt
"Hope he enjoys
September 28, 2009 - 14:02 ET by HockeyKid"Hope he enjoys jail."
And finds a nice prison bodybuilder who enjoys a little Polanski in the evenings.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Actually!!
September 29, 2009 - 13:22 ET by Patriot IIA simple castration and let the pedophile go! seems to satisfy all complaints doesn't it? ;)
A sick bastage AND a fargin'
September 28, 2009 - 14:16 ET by mangA sick bastage AND a fargin' icehole. What was their reaction to Jaycee Dugard's abductors? Using this rationale, she willingly stayed with the guy for 18 years, so it's cool, right? Aww shucks, just let the guy go. Unbelievable.
This is really a good example of how the left selectively puts a value on certain people's lives. Their feminist values can be conveniently shelved when it involves a celebrity....it's all about protecting their own at any expense.
So if enough time passes,
September 28, 2009 - 14:02 ET by TenebrousSo if enough time passes, then the wrongdoing doesn't count anymore? Liberals have tried this kind of thinking for years; first with Kennedy, then with Carter, then with Clinton. It's a perpetual example of kindergarten logic: "That was yesterday, mom!"
-----
Random-jumbled-thoughts.blogspot.com
~In all fairness
September 29, 2009 - 13:25 ET by choselife3xConservatives do that, too. And lots of them are here on this site.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the lying leftist under my heel.
http://newsbusters.o...
Maybe, just maybe
September 28, 2009 - 14:17 ET by IamTinmanI'm just guessing here, but maybe it's because that piece of human detritus got a 13 year old girl drunk with booze and pills, savagely raped her and fled to escape the consequence of his actions!
The idea that just because he avoided prosecution for so long, he walks is absurd!
CEO?
September 28, 2009 - 14:21 ET by Kingfish17Most everybody who is involved in the film industry at Polanski's level owns their own limited liability company or two. This would make him a CEO. Surely the left and the populist crowd can't object to hauling a rotten old CEO back to the United States for some justice!
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
It's mind boggling why they're still pursuing this?
September 28, 2009 - 14:27 ET by Airforce_5_OSo your telling me you don't understand why they are still pusuing this? Seriously? Your pulling my chain? Right?
Okay let me see if I can break it down for you: Because the Statute of Limitations doesn't run out on child molestation you moron!
Liberalism: The haunting feeling that someone, somewhere, can help themselves.
Not so much statute of limitations
September 28, 2009 - 14:39 ET by ahusserconcerning the crime but that he, in essence "escaped", custody and was never sentenced for his crime that he pled guilty to. Of course the pointy headed judge allowed him to continue on bond pending sentencing and, according to Blonde (above), a court ordered psychiatric evaluation. It sounds to me that the judge was a liberal jerk. For A: allowing bond in this case. B: Not having Polanski surrender his passport. and C: Allowing a court ordered psych after he pled guilty to said crime. Usually if sanity is in question then the eval will be before the plea and sentencing. So it sounds to me that the judge was trying, in his legal liberal way to get Polanski off the hook. Where did the trial take place San Francisco?
Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
I wonder if the State of
September 28, 2009 - 15:19 ET by Scuba DudeI wonder if the State of California seized any and all assets this scum had in California and the US at the time he fled the country? If they did I think they should have been awarded to the victim. That's my 2 cents.
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
these are the same people...
September 28, 2009 - 14:44 ET by sarainitalyThese are the same people who think Ted Kennedy did nothing wrong, either. And the same people who wonder if Mary Jo would have thought it "worth it"....
Whoopi was making me ill today with her *it wasn't rape* bull. Learn the law Whoopi! Sex with a child is rape.
What's with these
September 28, 2009 - 15:14 ET by RR GOPWhat's with these Libtards? Think they'd defend a Klansman who raped a young black girl? I don't think so. They have to draw the line somewhere I suppose.
Any way to throw a monkey wrench into the works seems to be what they're all about.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Morons
September 28, 2009 - 16:48 ET by justbob223"It's mind boggling why they're still pursuing this." No, what is mind-boggling is that there are people who think it's no big deal and we should just forget that a dirty old man drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl.
Roman Polanski is...
September 28, 2009 - 17:27 ET by PrairieSkya child rapist, and what is mind-boggling is that O'Neil (and the other moral defectives like him) can't seem to understand that the number of years that have passed since this crime took place is irrelevant...It doesn't matter if it's been 30 minutes, 30 months or 30 years. The fact is that Polanski committed this crime and then like the degenerate coward he is, split the country in order to avoid being punished for what he did. It's that simple.
Polanski has lived quite comfortably on the lam all these years in Europe, and has never been made to face his punishment for his crime. I for one hope that he will finally be brought to justice for what he did.
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan
He pleaded guilty to a
September 28, 2009 - 17:31 ET by Kat Outta the BagHe pleaded guilty to a disgusting crime, then fled the country which created an additional crime. What are these starstruck fools not getting?
Child Rapist
September 28, 2009 - 18:33 ET by VengeanceIsMineI have made a point not to ever finance this guy, with one exception, Chinatown. I do own it on DVD. Unfortunately, it is one of my favorite movies of all time. It is also would buy consider buying it again on Blu-Ray even though it makes me sick to know that some of the proceeds go to this frickin creep.
"You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt." Daniel Hannan
I only saw Chinatown once in
September 28, 2009 - 23:02 ET by jkwtradingI only saw Chinatown once in 1974 but still remember Jack getting his nose slit like it was yesterday.
I didn't forget and also
September 28, 2009 - 18:44 ET by jkwtradingI didn't forget and also won't forget Kennedy killing someone..
the day might come when the libs asked to be forgiven for being liberals...that's the day I relish
Why is easy.
September 28, 2009 - 18:58 ET by cajun2JUSTICE
CNN Campbell Brown's teaser
September 28, 2009 - 18:59 ET by Radical1979CNN Campbell Brown's teaser was that Polanski was accused of a crime and why now after all these years.
He wasn't just accused, he pled guilty. And the act was rape/sodomy of a 13 year old girl. Why after all these years? They were finally able to catch him. Tell the truth Brown.
As a libertarian, I define "justice" as when people get...
September 28, 2009 - 19:05 ET by R D Helm...what they deserve.
If I had been Samantha Geimer's father and had found out what had happened the way her mother did, I, like her, would have called the police as well.
But it would only have been to inform them of where they could find what little would have been left of Roman Polanski, and to suggest they bring along a shop-vac and plenty of sponges to clean up the mess, because that worthless POS would have been essentially wallpaper.
-Dave
The election of 2010 will be our last chance to save our republic. -Neal Boortz
CNN (unintentionally I'm
September 28, 2009 - 19:34 ET by Radical1979CNN (unintentionally I'm sure) just played a clip that explains why Polanski's victim doesn't want to go back and relive the case. The publicity was traumatic to her. Not, oh he's a great guy, but the publicity was to much. I'm sure she's afraid of it again.
I'd like a list of all the celebrities who support Polanski so I can boycott them.
Well with that mentality
September 28, 2009 - 19:42 ET by ChattychitoWhy should the couple in the case of kidnapping and rape of an 11 year old who was discovered living in his back yard be charged with a crime. seeing it was such a long time ago?
maybe these psycophantic reporters wouldn't be so quick to let Polanski off the hook if it was them who he raped? or their child maybe? and just because his victim forgave him does not mean he shouldn't pay for his crime by doing his time and register as a sex offender as all other child rapist are made to do.
It isn't about the rape case anymore though he needs to pay for his crime. Did he pay any restitution to the poor victims? NO! he fled from being sentenced which is another crime all together. When countries help criminals hide they should not get any of our support from our companies, government or tourism.
The French they are the only ones who could dress up a pile of S**T and garnish it so pretty then tell you is is Gormet food. Polanski is a criminal fugitive who did not pay society for his crime. It will be forgotten when he does his time and pays his fine. until then don't eat, buy or drink French food, products or wines.
Viva la pervert!
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
All Cleared up
September 29, 2009 - 07:19 ET by nadadhimmiPolanski's error was failing to visit an Acorn office. They would have set up a whole brothel of 13 yr olds for him and he could have claimed them all as dependants. That's the real tragety, Acorn could have cleared up this mess in mere moments, lol.
to mr O'Neill-we have statue of limitations-
September 29, 2009 - 07:39 ET by JIMMY1660however as we chased down pedophile priests or scum bags like mr polanski. we are protecting our children.
he pleaded guilty and cowardly ran away.he came out of hiding, now he must pay. PERIOD!!
BHO- THE PROGRESSIVE PIRATE