Emma Thompson removes her name from petition in support of Polanski
Actress Emma Thompson has removed her name from a petition condemning the attempt to extradite Roman Polanski to Los Angeles to face sentencing in a three-decade-old rape case.
Some top Hollywood stars and directors including Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen have voiced support for Polanski, the director who fled the U.S. before being sentenced for having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.
According to the Independent newspaper in London, Thompson decided to pull her name off the petition after she met with Caitlin Hayward-Tapp, a student at Exeter University.
Hayward-Tapp told the paper she made her case about why signing the petition was a bad idea.
"It turned out she was very willing to hear what I had to say. She said she knows Roman Polanski and that she had had calls from friends asking her to sign the petition. She knows what a terrible early life he [Polanski] had," she told the paper. "She said she had already been thinking a lot about the petition, as others had expressed their dismay at her signing it. We talked for 15 minutes, and by the end she said she would get her name removed."
Polanski, 76, is fighting efforts to be sent back to the United States.
-- Shelby Grad



What a totally pointless "article." Why is Emma Thompson's opinion relevant one way or another, WHO is this student from a college in England and what group does she represent, WHY should we care, etc. etc.?
WHY is some student from Exeter University in the UK lobbying actresses like Emma Thompson to remove herself from the petition supporting Polanski? Is student with a rape victim support group, WHAT is the background of her interest? There are a lot of angles to this issue, including matters involving prosecutorial possible misconduct. Some student at a college in England who this "article" says spent 15 mins. with Thomson "explaining" her reasons - NOT given or even hinted at here - might have had a limited focus, but we have NO idea what that might have been from this "article."
Posted by: (Exasperated) Reading Comprehension Teacher | November 08, 2009 at 08:09 AM
Good for Ms. Thompson.
And good for Miss Hayward-Tapp for speaking truth to someone who probably never hears anything that isn't fawning or glowing.
Posted by: CJB | November 08, 2009 at 10:03 AM
after sharon tates death, doesn't give him the excuse to rape a 13 yearold!
Posted by: pancho | November 08, 2009 at 10:37 AM
What doesn't surprise me is that woody allen signed the petition. it seems that nobody cares that this man is a dirtbag as long has he keeps makin dem good'ol movies. But when you think about it, ol woody is quite craddle-robber himself! Wonder if he'd let his daughter stay overnight in polanski's house. Whats really ironic as that these same idiots whould have had Micheal Jackson fried! When it comes to these kinds of crimes--we need to put aside their career accomplishments--they are criminals who need to be punished like everyone else.
Posted by: j3161usa | November 08, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Polanski is a rapist. he gave a 13 year old drugs and alcohol--no one is denying that.
Thompson, Allen and the rest of the rapist apologists are an embarrassment to all of us.
Polanski is a sick person--those supporting him are approving of rape. Shame on those who support Polanski and rape. It does not matter who the girl represents--Allen, Thompson and Scorsese represent rapist. Wonder what their wives and daughters think?
Posted by: steve frank | November 08, 2009 at 11:25 AM
It explains a few things about why some people support Polanski's position I can even agree, the guy had a tough early life, and we know he had another tough time with his wife and child being killed. It doesn't excuse rape or running away, it doesn't excuse the DA's behavior. But his friends are mindful of the past and got caught up in it.
Could the story be better? Absolutely. But it isn't totally pointless.
Posted by: Bill T | November 08, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Read the court transcripts before you find excuses with Polanski's hard-knock life. An unhappy childhood is not a free pass to rape.
The issues of prosecutorial misconduct do not exist. A fawning HBO documentary on Polanski raised faux "issues" after speaking to a prosecutor unconnected to the case who has since recanted his allegations of misconduct. FYI, most courts don't accept "evidence" as crap contained in movies.
The real issues are that Polanski drugged, sodomized and raped a thirteen year old child.
So, although this was a poorly written article, sadly lacking in expository detail, it is heartening that perhaps the student "explaining" to Ms. Thompson the facts in the case may have caused her to examine the transcripts and thus realize that she had been duped into signing the petition.
Posted by: karen | November 08, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Oh my, how devastating. Looks like the Free Polanski movement will have to do without someone who can be talked out of it in 15 minutes.
Posted by: Jack Worthing | November 08, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Just to remind Exasperated, L.A. Now is made up of informal, blog-like posts. So it really doesn't make sense to call it a quote-article-unquote as if to demean its quality. Smart readers will already understand that information they read on the Net needs to pass through a knowledge filter, anyway.
Why the hubbub? Well, simply put, this is not only a crime issue but a women's rights issue. By treating Polanski with kids gloves it is demeaning the heinous nature of the attack and therefore objectifying women in the process. (No pun intended, by the way.)
As outgoing LAPD Chief Bill Bratton put it (paraphrased): "How would you like it if that was your daughter?"
Posted by: J in Pasadena | November 08, 2009 at 12:30 PM
For reasons like these I very seldom listen to what 'Hollywood' folks have to say.
They may be movie stars, but they are not very intelligent.
Vito
Posted by: Uncle_vito | November 08, 2009 at 01:09 PM
Who cares?
Posted by: Insane Twane | November 08, 2009 at 02:31 PM
I wonder why Jack Nicholson was never charged with a crime, seeing that this happened in his home.
Posted by: Dodger Tony | November 08, 2009 at 02:42 PM
One has to wonder what connection there is between Polanski's "terrible early life" and his drugging and raping a 13-year-old and being on the run for decades from serving time for his crime. One would think that having a terrible childhood would cause one to want other children to be spared terrible experiences.
Posted by: bob klinck | November 08, 2009 at 03:18 PM
How convenient for Emma. She now has a viable reason to throw her friend under a bus.
Posted by: KatheM | November 08, 2009 at 03:30 PM
Who is Emma Thomson anyway.
Guess she's a wobbler!!!!
Posted by: Dan | November 08, 2009 at 03:31 PM
all of putanski's supporters shoul be deported to iraq. since most of them are jews, they would get what putanski shoul but won't get in from this arse kissing injustice system.
Posted by: ferenc | November 08, 2009 at 03:51 PM
Good for Emma Thompson for being one to stand up for what is right. I wonder how many of those who signed the petition wished they haven't. There is a huge backlash against those who signed and seriously, how many of them actually knew the facts??
Maybe she thought about a 40+ year old man having sex with her daughter at 13 and changed her mind.
Maybe she was presented with the transcript of Samantha Greimers testimony.
Maybe she finally came to her senses that it isn't a good idea to sit on the side of a pedophile.
Posted by: michelle | November 08, 2009 at 04:04 PM
That scumbag should just waver extradition come back hire a fancy mouth piece, and get credit for time on the lam. Now that's a nice celebrity
Posted by: theidahokid | November 08, 2009 at 04:13 PM
I had exactly the same thoughts as (Exasperated) Reading Comprehension Teacher expressed when I was reading the article. Completely incoherent, leaves you puzzled.
Posted by: Really | November 08, 2009 at 04:13 PM
One law for them and one law for all of us.Roman must meet justice or or laws already are poop. And I am being polite.
Posted by: Joemamabush | November 08, 2009 at 05:16 PM
And this is news...how?? And you wonder why you're losing subscribers.
Posted by: Mark G | November 08, 2009 at 06:23 PM
So all that was to be talked about and hopefully get a role in the next Polanski movie. Now that the poor man is rotting in jail and might never make a film again, she has decided to remove her name ? Shame on you Emma, I will never see one of your films and never support one of your causes. Your are a disgrace to the film industry !
Posted by: Bob | November 08, 2009 at 11:35 PM
It's too late...She will be forever thought of as a pedophile sympathizer...whoever she is....
Posted by: TheBigPicture | November 09, 2009 at 12:13 AM
Polanski continues his program of attempting to escape being held individually accountable for his pedophile misdeeds. Leopards never change theit spots and this predator is still out there in Europe acting like nothing happened and trying to portary himself as a victim. Anyone signing this petition is signalling they are as sick as he is.
Posted by: Norm Silver | November 09, 2009 at 04:29 AM
Dear (Exasperated) Reading Comprehension Teacher,
Thank you! I couldn't have said it better!
(Exasperated) Reader
Posted by: (Exasperated) Reader | November 09, 2009 at 05:29 AM
I, too, would like to know more details. Who is this girl and how was she able to get Emma Thompsons ear? Why did Emma agree to meet with her? Was it a random encounter or is she a school newspaper reporter?
This story non-story raises a lot of unanswered questions.
Posted by: Ruby Jackson | November 09, 2009 at 06:25 AM
Well, the "victim" of Polanski's rape doesn't want the case pursued and there's always the possibility that Polanski has "rehabilitated" himself and mended his ways over the past thirty-odd years. Why is the state so eager to have its pound of flesh having delayed justice for decades? I wonder if there's more to this story than the pubic has been told? Finally, doesn't Emma Thompson have the right to change her mind? Remember, "...foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Posted by: BaDaBing | November 09, 2009 at 08:36 AM
Samantha Geimer's credibility went out the window when she accepted money from Polanski. Settlement of her civil suit against Polanski probably stipulated that she not pursue or encourage anyone else to pursue criminal charges against him. What she says now that she want is irrelevant. She was bought off by her perpetrator.
Posted by: Ruby Jackson | November 09, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Dearest Polanski supporters...I too want him free.
After he does 13 years for each year that child was.
She could not "make him do it" and she could not
really stop him with out possible harm or even death!
Most try to "act" older when we were young... and get some ones attention...I did!
Most have sad stories about our abuse and sorry upbringings BUT we grow by getting help with or without money and grow up and move thru it... ADULT action if your stuck! It takes effort but being in the now is being well not a wounded bird. POOR ROMAN had a nasty childhood! BOO HOO
He played then ran away... now he can stay and pay... and not with the green back.
We all know he has lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
It was against the law at that time in the USA
and it still stands today... Loud and CLEAR
Pay up by being a Man not the Rat you were
"THREE DECADES AGO".
.... (I remember the story well) just sick....
we did not give you a FREE PASS POLANSKI
what were you thinking all that time??????
Let's get it right for that "beautiful girl" who was
just 13 years of age.... Hey let "HER HEAL" this
drama that has destroyed her life. (unbelievable)
SHE IS STILL YOUR VICTUM....
if you paid her after shame on YOU...
I think you did not and it does not matter anyways.
Let the BIG MAN sing for his supper!!!!!!!
I'll pray for her as it gets unearthed
in HER FACE once more.... she did not ask you to again rub it in our faces ,so you got youself caught!!!!!
OH WELL!!!!! I'll pray for little bitty roman child. They may have thearpy in jail I hope for your sake they do... your not as young as then and still not healed from your crime.
Posted by: Lolay | November 09, 2009 at 04:02 PM
The United States Goverment is going after Polanski like he's a Nazi War Criminal.
The United States Government didn't even go after most Nazi War Criminals
and still won't.
Some of them were invited into the US to work with the government.
How's that for justice.
Switzerland is not a neutral country. They seem they are the United States
puppet government now.
Posted by: Bob Simon | November 09, 2009 at 05:17 PM
Let me see if I get this:
Mel Gibson goes on a drunken tirade against Jews, and he is practically crucified by the Hollywood elite. Yet Roman Polanski, who has admitted to drugging and raping a 13 year old girl, gets a pass? How is child rape worth less condemnation? What is wrong with these people!
Before signing this petition, all of these celebs. need to ask themselves one question: How would I feel if I found out a man just drugged and raped my 13 year old child!
Kudos for Emma Thompson for backing out ofthis!
Posted by: Jean | November 10, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Emma Thompson has been one of my favorite actresses since I was a child. I was shocked when I saw her name on the petition and I'm very glad to hear that she has removed it.
Ruby- Ms. Thompson has a reputation of being very receptive to conversations with fans at talks and rallies. It's really no surprise to me that she gave Ms. Hayward-Tapp 15 minutes to make her case. This sounds more in character than signing the petition in the first place.
Posted by: outis | November 10, 2009 at 03:50 PM
Interesting that most if not all of the highly self-righteous and indignant comments about Polanski, are from those who know nothing or who were not around at the time of the actual incident - including Emma Thompson – oh yes they may have read some of the second hand reports on the internet, but still for the most part they know little of what really happened – I know, because I was around at the time and knew some of those involved.
What Geimer, the 13 year old told authorities what happened to her was what her ambitious mother had told her to say happened to her. It was not Polanski that Geimer was afraid to say no to, it was her conniving mother! A mother who wanted only one of two things, either STARDOM for her well groomed daughter that she could control or a meal ticket for her own failures at the game – nothing less. And some wonder why Geimer is so forgiving...
Basically, the police had nothing to go on other than the girl’s statement and to prove such a case during those days without obtaining DNA etc would be nigh impossible.
They needed some sort of corroborating evidence. This they obtained through Anjelica Huston, who was arrested at Jack Nicholson’s house (where she was staying at the time) with a gram of coke (in those days, very bad for one’s career as far as the studios were concerned) and promptly had the charges dropped after being persuaded by police and her agent into agreeing to testify that she saw Geimer naked in the presents of an adult male, namely Polanski. Thereby, under California Law and without even physically touching anyone, this would constitute outright “Statutory Rape”
Nevertheless, “Statutory Rape” would definitely suffice in this situation for the sake of a high profile, money making prosecution and court case – everyone would get a little taste of something to take home – including the arrogant Judge, who later, when realizing how much notoriety was at stake, decided to reneged on Polanski’s previously agreed plea bargain of “unlawful sex with a minor” - for which Polanski spent an agreed upon time in jail undergoing what turned out to be a positive psychiatric evaluation.
Polanski never admitted to sodomizing Geimer or plying her with drink and drugs, as so many would have one believe - besides, that was not his preference nor his style.
Did Polanski like and sexually chase after young girls? Definitely not. S Polanski was to my knowledge and still is, far too decent and conservative in his personal ways and values to engage in such benign pursuits.
However, at that time, what did appear to me to be of interest to him, was the natural and unaffected rare and honesty quality of character that could very seldom be found amongst the constant wanna-be parade of both the talented and talentless.
But and sadly so, constantly surrounded by some of the biggest whores who ever set foot in Hollywood; ever ready to let him pick up the tab and take advantage of his hospitality, it was obvious that Polanski was still desperately looking for his “Snow White” - the lost love of his life - Sharon Tate!
Anyone who ever knew Sharon or had the pleasure of meeting her will perhaps understand what I am attempting to convey. When she said hello to you she would truly mean it, because she was such a thoroughly decent, wholesome and totally unaffected beauty, a young woman who’s character was bounded solely by the rare quality and nature of truthfulness itself – something and someone quite unforgettable and sadly, irreplaceable.
For Polanski, In film making terms, Sharon was the only scene ever worth printing and the memory which he would never re-cut or violate.
Whether you like Polanski’s work or not, say what you like, the man has never ever shot a single frame of BS in his life.
The real whores in this seedy saga are the legal lackeys in both Switzerland and the USA, because when money talks their justice walks – in fact today it positively runs.
For years the Swiss have been happy to collect taxes from Polanski and capitalize Gstaad’s tourist industry on his residential celebrity –
the lawyers knew in advance of the awards ceremony and should have had the decency to warn him to stay away and thereby avoid the trap.
As for the US justice system, it’s the same ole same ole, they know they messed up in the Polanski case in 1978 and acted dishonorably, but what the heck, anything for a buck anything for 15 minutes of fame and glory at the expense of Polanski & his French family, and the victim and her family!
Posted by: Islandsman | November 12, 2009 at 02:41 AM
Now i've read all the comments on this website.
It's clear that most Americans should go back to school.
There isn't a country in the world where you can find more
stupid people than in America.
I Always thought that the guests in the Jerry Springer
Show were ACTORS and ACTRICES and that it was all just for
the show.
I've opened up my eyes , and in retrospect , i respect
Jerry Springer for SHOWING HOW STUPID AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE !
Unbelievable.
And Emma Thompson , she starred between SCHWARZENEGGER and
Danny Devito in "Junior" (Schwarzenegger was getting a baby
in that movie) , is a spineless person who doesn't seem
to have a mind of her own.
Whatever she decides to do is seldom really her own choice.
Even teenagers can easily change her mind.
What a dispictable weak woman.
Posted by: Don Heckers | November 12, 2009 at 06:23 AM
Now i've read all the comments on this website.
It's clear that most Americans should go back to school.
There isn't a country in the world where you can find more
stupid people than in America.
I Always thought that the guests in the Jerry Springer
Show were ACTORS and ACTRICES and that it was all just for
the show.
I've opened up my eyes , and in retrospect , i respect
Jerry Springer for SHOWING HOW STUPID AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE !
Unbelievable.
And Emma Thompson , she starred between SCHWARZENEGGER and
Danny Devito in "Junior" (Schwarzenegger was getting a baby
in that movie) , is a spineless person who doesn't seem
to have a mind of her own.
Whatever she decides to do is seldom really her own choice.
Even teenagers can easily change her mind.
What a dispictable weak woman.
Posted by: Don Heckers | November 12, 2009 at 06:23 AM
That's great news. People should not be defending a child rapist like Roman Polanski. To quote Kevin Smith, "Look, I dig 'Rosemary's Baby,' but rape's rape. Do the crime, do the time."
Posted by: Jeremy | November 14, 2009 at 04:05 PM
just an idea......put the army shooter in same hospital room with those who are injured, they will take care of him
Posted by: joey | November 14, 2009 at 09:28 PM
The last time I looked Emma Thompson was not the judge in this case and she doesn't know what’s going on. Also if it only took 15 minutes to persuade her that her signature was wrong - she sounds fickle and signed the petition without thought. Also Emma Thomson is missing not only her signature but the point.
I am sure Caitlin Hayward-Tapp, a student at Exeter University England Europe was not able to advise Emma Thomson of the CRIME THAT WAS BEING PERPETRATED UPON ROMAN POLANSKI BY THE SANTA MONICA JUSTICE - JUDGE LAURENCE J. RITTENBAND.
IT WAS AND STILL IS A CRIME for that Santa Monica Judge to use illegal power to coerce Roman Polanski into waving his rights to dispute deportation 32 years ago.
Clichés such as "a crime is a crime" or "the law is the law", are enormous self-perpetuating techniques that we have all lost control of.
What does "the law is the law" mean in this case?
The movie Polanski: Wanted and Desired gives us a glimpse of the law, and does a good job to show that the law was jerking Roman Polanski around.
You will agree with what I just said, that the law was jerking Roman Polanski around, only if you believe that someone who has been charged with a crime should be treated fairly in all stages of the process, including the sentencing.
I don't think these clichés "The law is the law" or "A crime is a crime" is applicable in Polanski's case whether it was 32 years ago or now, as the Santa Monica Judge was going to renege on the plea bargain agreement when the agreement had already been made, and after Polanski had already served the non-appealable prison time specified in the plea bargain agreement
The plea bargain agreement had been formulated by the lawyers and prosecutors and victim's lawyer, and agreed upon so as to avoid a formal trial involving the 13 year old girl.
Once Polanski was informed that the plea agreement was going to be breached by the Judge from Polanski's perspective -the California Justice could no longer be trusted as Polanski had kept his end of the bargain by serving 42 days at Chino prison,
Note: Polanski would have served, and was willing to serve the full 90 days if Chino Prison officials had not released him after 42 days with no further prison time recommended by Chino Officials.
Judge Laurence J. Rittenband, wielded Illegal Judicial power to impose an indeterminate sentence on Polanski until he would agree to give up his RIGHTS to fight DEPORTATION.
The Santa Monica Judge's coercion of Polanski into involuntary deportation, using the threat of indeterminate prison time was in excess of the Judge's jurisdiction, and ILLEGAL.
Roman Polanski escaped from the injustice that was about to be imposed on him by the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband .
I BELIEVE ROMAN POLANSKI WOULD NOT HAVE RUN AWAY FROM THE SANTA MONICA JUSTICE, IF HE HAD BEEN DEALT WITH FAIRLY. BUT HE WASN’T.
RUNNING AWAY FROM DANGER & INJUSTICE IS A RECURRING MOTIF WHICH STARTED EARLY IN POLANSKI'S LIFE
IT IS HIS "ROSEBUD"
Posted by: Bundy | November 16, 2009 at 07:19 PM
The last time I looked Emma Thompson was not the judge in this case and she doesn't know what’s going on. Also if it only took 15 minutes to persuade her that her signature was wrong - she sounds fickle and signed the petition without thought. Also Emma Thomson is missing the point.
I am sure Caitlin Hayward-Tapp, a student at Exeter University in England 6000 MILES AWAY FROM LOS ANGELES was not able to advise Emma Thompson REGARDING THE CRIME THAT WAS BEING PERPETRATED UPON ROMAN POLANSKI BY THE SANTA MONICA JUDGE - JUDGE LAURENCE J. RITTENBAND.
IT WAS AND STILL IS A CRIME for that Santa Monica Judge to have used illegal power to coerce Roman Polanski into waving his rights to dispute deportation 32 years ago.
What does "the law is the law" mean in this case?
The movie Polanski: Wanted and Desired gives us a glimpse of the law, and does a good job to show that the law was jerking Roman Polanski around.
You will agree with what I just said, that the law was jerking Roman Polanski around, only if you believe that someone who has been charged with a crime should be treated fairly in all stages of the process, including the sentencing.
I don't think these clichés "The law is the law" or "A crime is a crime" is applicable in Polanski's case whether it was 32 years ago or now, as the Santa Monica Judge was going to renege on the plea bargain agreement when the agreement had already been made, and after Polanski had already served the non-appealable prison time specified in the plea bargain agreement
The plea bargain agreement had been formulated by the lawyers and prosecutors and victim's lawyer, and agreed upon so as to avoid a formal trial involving the 13 year old girl.
Once Polanski was informed that the plea agreement was going to be breached by the Judge from Polanski's perspective -the California Justice could no longer be trusted as Polanski had kept his end of the bargain by serving 42 days at Chino prison,
Note: Polanski would have served, and was willing to serve the full 90 days if Chino Prison officials had not released him after 42 days with no further prison time recommended by Chino Officials.
Judge Laurence J. Rittenband, wielded Illegal Judicial power to impose an indeterminate sentence on Polanski until he would agree to give up his RIGHTS to fight DEPORTATION.
The Santa Monica Judge's coercion of Polanski into involuntary deportation, using the threat of indeterminate prison time was in excess of the Judge's jurisdiction, and ILLEGAL.
Roman Polanski escaped from the injustice that was about to be imposed on him by the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband.
I BELIEVE ROMAN POLANSKI WOULD NOT HAVE RUN AWAY FROM THE SANTA MONICA JUDGE RITTENBAND, IF HE HAD BEEN DEALT WITH FAIRLY. BUT HE WASN’T TREATED FAIRLY.
RUNNING AWAY FROM DANGER & INJUSTICE IS A RECURRING MOTIF THAT STARTED BY NECESSITY EARLY IN ROMAN POLANSKI'S LIFE
IT IS HIS "ROSEBUD"
Posted by: Bundy | November 16, 2009 at 07:47 PM