L.A. NOW

Southern California -- this just in

« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »

Roman Polanski: 'I can remain silent no longer'

In his first public statement in months, filmmaker Roman Polanski said Sunday that his possible extradition to the United States over a 33-year-old sex-crime case is authorities' attempt "to serve me on a platter to the media of the world."

Polanski, who has been held in Switzerland since September, published the statement in an online magazine run by French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, one of his longtime supporters.

In it, Polanski argues that the case against him is unjust, citing discrepancies in court procedure and the fact that the victim in the case has requested that proceedings against Polanski be dropped.

"I can remain silent no longer because the California court has dismissed the victim's numerous requests that proceedings against me be dropped, once and for all, to spare her from further harassment every time this affair is raised once more," Polanski wrote.

He also takes aim at Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley, who last year revived attempts to sentence Polanski in the case, which stemmed from his arrest in 1977 after having sex with a 13-year-old girl.

Polanski said Cooley, who is running for California attorney general, is "campaigning for election and needs media publicity!"

The Oscar-winning director was arrested in 1977 and charged with various offenses, including rape. He pleaded guilty to having unlawful sex with a minor and spent 42 days in a California state prison during a psychiatric evaluation, but he fled the country before final sentencing.

-- Kate Linthicum

 
Comments () | Archives (105)

a hopeless narcissist - poor me - just the type that would reserve to himself the prerogative to rape and sodomize a 13 year old

Sorry, Mr. Polanski, while we take Oscar winner seriously, we take pedophilla and statutory rape even more seriously.

Chinatown is one of the greatest movies ever! However, Polanski is an admitted felon who fled the country. There is no rational argument for saying he should not come back and face the consequences for is actions. if the prior judge was unfair, he can tell the current judge about it when he gets back.

Shut up, Roman. If you hadn't fled justice in 1977, this would have all been forgotten a long time ago.

This case has been from the beginning about political moral nepotism and not about justice. It's been reported that the attorney general and the judge had some malfeasance since day one, when the judge renege in a deal made between the defense attorney and the prosecutor. If justice had been, from the beginning the goal, the mother of the girl had to have been the first one going to jail. A mother was sent to jail, here in Texas, not necessarily a bastion of jurisprudence, because her infant girl was seeing walking on the street by herself. The little girl managed to unlock the door and out she went and she was punished. Nothing happened to the girl and yet, in California, the justice system allows the mother to go free. Were the city attorney and the judge expecting some of the same from the girl? Every thing is fair in the war of the sexes. This case is not, was not and will never be about justice, but political oil peddling.

Can't dismiss charges he pleaded guilty to. Besides, just read what he did to this 13 yr old girl - he should've been locked up for 25 years.

Bring him back let the media sharks have at him, serves him right.......

Put him in jail already. Pervert childmolester

Still not a syllable of remorse. Does this guy not get it? He drugged and sodomized an 8th-grade girl. Can he not understand that most people are far more outraged about his "misconduct" than about the judge's?

Can someone please tell this pervert and his supporters that his victim really has no say in the matter. Other than being a witness for the state, she really can't do anything to let him off the hook. It is up to the state to determine whether he is punished further or not. In my opinion, he should rot in jail, but again, it is up to the state to determine that.

Mr. Polanski, did you or did you not drug a 14 year old girl and then proceed to have sex with her? YOU DID! Did you or did you not plead quilty to said crime? YOU DID! Did you or did you not flee this country in an attempt to avoid serving actual prison time for the crime which YOU ADMITTED TO? YOU DID!

Enough said! Bring his ass back before this court and send him off to prison!

What an unadulterated scumbag this elitist is.

What is to admire about this pedophilist?

You have the power, you have the money, guess you can have any 12-year-old you want.

He is dog feces.

Why didn't he bring all these points up 33 years ago?

SCUMBAG.

OK, here we go again. Polanski, you did yourself no favors by making the following statement, "I can remain silent no longer because the California court has dismissed the victim's numerous requests that proceedings against me be dropped ... to spare her from further harassment every time this affair is raised once more."

So, we should drop the charges because the victim, who wants to be spared "further harassment," has requested that this matter be dismissed?

OK, let me get this straight, ... if a victim of a crime doesn't want to prosecute their assailant, then the police should just say, "OK, have a nice day"?

Hmmm, now that don't seem right.

You know, I've read about this phenomena that victims of domestic violence and rape often don't want to prosecute their assailants so that they don't have to go through the ordeal and shame - oh yes, shame - of facing their assailant or bringing them to justice.

Because of this understandable reticence, the law decided that if certain crimes were committed (like rape), it would no longer rely on the victim to prosecute their assailant. The State would prosecute the assailant on the victim's behalf. I guess the law wanted to make sure that an assailant would be prosecuted and punished despite the intimidation, shame, fear and regret a victim might feel, in the hopes that such prosecution and punishment would deter the assailant from continuing to harm the same person or even another person.

I think that's a really good thing.

Couldn't Roman have taken just a few moments to actually APOLOGIZE to his victim instead of acting like one himself while including her in his screed about what a martyr he is being forced to become? Ah, the sublime magnificence of self-entitled narcissists never ceases to amaze.

Polanski still is not taking any responsibility for drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 13 year old girl. He still is blaming everyone else, rather than recognizing his own actions. He sounds like every common criminal in prison who claims to be innocent despite the overwhelming evidence against them. So prison is where he belongs....

What does Polanski mean that California has ignored HIS VICTIM, and not dropped the charges against him?
IN 1977, JUDGE RITTENBAND, who Polanski LIES and claims was mean/unfair to him, DROPPED MOST OF THE FELONY CHARGES AND ONLY MADE POLANSKI DEAL WITH ONE CRIMINAL CHARGE!!!
This was OVERLY GENEROUS!! The judge was A SWEETHEART TO POLANSKI!
Why?
Back then, THERE WAS NO LAW REQUIRING JUDGES TO CONSIDER THE VICTIMS FEELINGS/WISHES.
This means that GOOD JUDGE RITTENBAND WAS DECADES AHEAD OF HIS TIME!!

It is NOT the LA justice system that is harming anyone.
ROMAN POLANSKI IS HARMING EVERYONE IN THE WORLD!
It is Polanski who CONFESSED THAT HE WAS A MASS MURDERER, who arranged the murders of his wife, and her friends, BY CHARLES MANSON!!!
Roman Polanski ADMITTED THAT HE BRIBED PRISON OFFICIALS TO LET HIM OPUT OF PRISON IN 42 days. THIS MONTHS BEFORE HE WAS RELEASED FROM PRISON, when POLANSKI SAID THIS CONFESSION OF FELONIE CRIMES!!
It was POLANSKI who BRAGGED THAT HE PLANNED TO KILL MORE CELEBRITIES IN THE FUTURE. HE BRAGGED THAT HE COULD DO THIS AND GET AWAY WITH IT, because he got away with it in the MANSON CASE!!!
MY POINT:
If Polanski would TELL THE TRUTH, then Hollywood would pull its strings and get him let out of prison, to hide out in France, for the rest of his life!!!!!
They like stinky criminals as much as they like stinkycheese!

The fact that Cooley is running for office and needs publicity is probably true. And the fact Polanski is a fugitive has little to do with the right or wrong of the that political fact. Rommey should have been concerned about the welfare of the 13 year old girl 33 years ago.

Really ? Too bad Mr. Polanski. You RAPED a 13 year old girl - no one gets off. It is a very very serious crime. You got to travel the world and have your career. She likely still has nightmares after being sodomized by you. I am not surprised that she just wants this over with. But you, the coward that you were, did not give her the justice she deserved then. You fled the country like a dog. Now she has to go back to this painful part of her life which she has nobly tried to put behind her. I don't blame her for not wanting to go there again. Unfortunately, it was you who hurt her so much that she is now feeling this way. That is not, Mr Polanski, a vindication for you, but rather proof that she is still suffering from what you did to her. Why not do something different for a change and stand up like a man and try for once to do the right thing.
The judicial system in this case are trying to secure justice by not dropping the case. They are not like you. To then, life isn't all about show and popularity as you would,of course, presume. Some people in this world actually care about children and about justice.

let's make an example out of roman, who's not really a roman.

In the end one thing is clear, Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. The fact that she no longer wants to pursue the case is irrelevant; that Polanski paid her off with cash says more about her motivations than about her pursuit of justice. Her ability to sell out her concience does not mean that the justice system has to also sell out.

Polanski needs to stop being a coward and accept responsibility for his actions.

Why does this paper continue to call it "unlawful sex with a minor"?

He has acknowledged that what the victim described is correct: That he drugged the 13-year-old girl and forcibly sodomized her has she cried for him to stop, weeping and saying "No! Stop!"

Oh, so NOW he cares about what the victim thinks? Too bad he didn't care when she was a helpless kid.

Shut up, you rapist. You should be in jail right now. I fear for the safety of your own daughter. Or is she too old for you now?

 
1 2 3 4 5 | »

Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video

About L.A. Now
L.A. Now is the Los Angeles Times’ breaking news section for Southern California. It is produced by more than 80 reporters and editors in The Times’ Metro section, reporting from the paper’s downtown Los Angeles headquarters as well as bureaus in Costa Mesa, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, Ventura and West Los Angeles.
Have a story tip for L.A. Now?
Please send to newstips@latimes.com
Can I call someone with news?
Yes. The city desk number is (213) 237-7847.

Categories




Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: