CNN Whitewash
CNN seems to think Polanski deserves a break too. Just look at the opening paragraph on their story:
(CNN) — The events of a single afternoon when she was 13 years old have haunted Samantha Geimer her entire life. A famous movie director allegedly gave her champagne and had sex with her.
There’s no god damned “allegedly” involved here: he admitted it.
PUT HIS ASS IN JAIL.
Morality, People | Mr. Bingley | 
September 29, 2009 11:00 am
Subscribe
“Not one comment here interprets my statements correctly. Not one.”
I’m not sure why you feel your comments need interpretation, John. Quoting them is quite enough to show your thinking on this – or it would be, if you were actually using language to convey information instead of hide it. You insist you mean exactly the opposite of what your statements say; as Gunslinger points out, sounds like your problem. Strunk and White are weeping in the next world.
I’m not of a mind to ‘interpret’ your statements into something nice, any more than I’m of a mind to ‘interpret’ Polanski’s drugging and raping a child into “a mistake,” as you have called it. All I can offer you is the courtesy of taking what you say at face value, and holding you accountable for the plain meaning of those statements. If you have no answer for the rebuttals, you can either agree to disagree or come around, but to obstinately refuse to hear those points, preferring instead to use the ones you cook up in your head and assign to us, is just lazy.
As an example – you say Polanski’s lack of violence towards Geimer is a mitigating factor. In rebuttal, I say that it could well be an aggravating factor, since he knew of his intended victim’s age beforehand, came equipped with alcohol and qualuudes to give to her (both felony offenses) and was obviously lying about his intentions to lure her there. All this speaks to premeditation. In addition, rape is generally considered a violation in and of itself, even if the victim is too intimidated or drugged-up to physically resist or flee.
So, as the defense counsel here, how would you rebut this argument? Would you simply repeat your original assertion, cast aspersions on my character, ignore my argument in favor of things I didn’t actually say, or introduce new evidence undercutting my premise and supporting your own? Thus far in 20 posts, you have done loads of A, B, and C, and even indulged in a bit of character assassination of Ms. Geimer herself (as quoted above) – but not once have you gone with D.
Perhaps this is why you find yourself and your position so very unpopular.
This is exactly what I was talking about. You state: “As an example – you say Polanski’s lack of violence towards Geimer is a mitigating factor.” Is this supposed to mean that I think the lack of violence made the rape any more acceptable or less of a crime? Rape, like murder, is a crime that comes in many forms, and those forms are considered by the prosecution when asking the judge to impose a particular sentence. That’s not my opinion. It’s just the way the legal process works.
I have been talking about how the nature of Polanski’s crime, according the victim’s own testimony, undoubtedly played a role in the decision to offer the plea bargain. You and others in this blog react to my remarks as if I’m making a case to exonerate Polanski. Nothing could be further from the truth. In California, Polanski’s crime was a Class B felony. A first offender could easily get the same plea bargain deal as Polanski. At worst, he would get a 2-year term in County Jail plus a fine. If he had used a weapon of any kind, or if he had been a repeat offender, it would have escalated to a Class A felony and mandatory jail time. The point being, according the California law, the plea bargain Polanski was offered was not out of line or a case of coddling a celebrity.
I have never said that what Polanski did wasn’t a felony, nor have I said that it was not premeditated (although I don’t think it could have been), so I have no idea why you’re bringing those things up. If I had been arguing that Polanski deserved a better plea bargain deal, then I would obviously expect people to go after that opinion. But what I’ve been doing is discussing how the DA’s office and prosecutor formulated the plea bargain.
When I stated that Polanski was deemed not to be a sexual predator by the two psyche evaluations at Chino, I immediately got these knee-jerk expressions of outrage. How dare I suggest he isn’t a predator and a pedophile! That is a reading comprehension problem, because it has nothing at all to do what I’ve been saying. What I think is irrelevant. What matters is what the psychologists at Chino, the prosecutor, the DA’s office and, initially, the judge thought. That’s what my posts have dealt with here.
This has not been about my opinion of the case. It has been about why Polanski was offered a deal in the first place, and how the judicial misconduct which took place might mitigate the court’s view of his decision to flee the country. It has been a prognostication that has nothing at all to do with what I think of Polanski’s behavior, or what I think his punishment should have been. The situation is what it is and California law is what it is.
What I find remarkable is that even surmising what went on in the court and what MIGHT happen if Polanski is extradited has been sufficient to bring out the kind of self-righteous belligerence I’ve seen in this blog.
So johnny boy, is it a case of you needing massive amounts of attention, a case of you needing to get the last word in or perhaps a little of both?
Gun, you clingy Neanderthal.
That’s 20 times, out of 104 posts.
What I find remarkable is that even surmising what went on in the court and what MIGHT happen if Polanski is extradited has been sufficient to bring out the kind of self-righteous belligerence I’ve seen in this blog.
No, John, that’s wrong. It’s not the “surmising”. It’s your blatant apologizing for a self-admitted child rapist.
Not being a reader I am of course too stupid to really understand the subtle nuances of John’s arguments so I am forced to go by his actual words and the actual words and actions of those actually involved in this case.
Let’s see:
The man was clearly still suffering from the psychological trauma of his wife’s brutal murder, and his judgment was grossly impaired. This is not an excuse, but it does explain why this behavior suddenly emerged from out of now where in a man who had never been involved in any similar incidents. That is why the therapists at Chino recommended probation. As terrible as his act was, Polanski was NOT a sexual predator and, therefore, deemed not a danger to society.
…Finally, psychologists and profilers who are trained to evaluate perpetrators of sex crimes unanimously stated that Roman Polanski was NOT a “sexual predator”, therefore he was NOT likely to repeat his behavior.
This was not a man who was a mindless, sexual deviant who preyed on children. He had no history of that behavior and, like it or not, prior offenses play a major role in determining a defendant’s sentence.
Fact: he was known to have had a string of teen-aged ‘girlfriends’ before this rape, including 15 year old Natasha Kinski in 1976. No pattern here folks, move right along.
Polanski had unlawful sex with a minor– a sexually active 13-year-old who was never threatened or physically injured during the incident. Of course, it was still a statutory rape, but it was not an aggravated assault and false imprisonment. That is clearly evident in the transcripts of the girl’s testimony.
Yes, the transcript where she says she was “afraid” of him (don’t click on that link unless you have some eye-bleach handy; it’s horrific reading and I’m not happy that I had to read it).
You read that and frankly the judge was completely correct in moving to impose a harsher penalty than the plea bargain, which is not ‘judicial misconduct’ but completely within his rights and duty as was clearly explained to Polanski. Unusual? Perhaps. But not illegal.
I’m tired of this, and I’m tired of John’s condescension and smugness and frankly creepy perversion, so take it somewhere else.
John, despite your claims, there was no “judicial misconduct.”
You claim that the judge was going to toss out a plea bargain. Note the future tense implied in that statement. Even if true, your claim is that the judge was going to commit judicial misconduct.
This means that you and Polanski are able to read the future. It’s kind of like “Minority Report.” You’ve declared an act committed when it never happened, it only had a possibility of happening.
When faced with the threat of having a wrong committed against a person, there are a few different options to take. Here, Polanski could have run or he could have sat through any potential misconduct. The law requires that he sit through misconduct and then appeal to a higher authority.
What you don’t seem to realize is that Europe is not a higher authority. Nor is Polanski the higher authority. Nor is Woody Allen.
What you advocate, beyond calling a thirteen year old girl a slut who deserved to be raped because her mother shopped her out to a pedophile, is that an individual has the power to determine his own judicial system.
Your position is ridiculous and not worthy of serious consideration, nor are you.
If my position is “ridiculous and not worthy of serious consideration”, why are you people spending so much time and energy writing these idiotic responses? And, Mr. Bingley, if you don’t think having your pregnant wife slaughtered two weeks before your son was going to be born would create serious emotional problems for you, then even less of your brain is functioning than I thought. And the fact that you don’t believe the prosecuting attorney or the defense when they state that there was massive judicial misconduct only proves that you have no interest in the facts. The judicial misconduct occurred on several levels: First, the judge agreed with the plea bargain and signed off on it in the presence of the attorneys, then spoke publicly that he was going to renege on the deal without notifying the defense. Second, he spoke to reporters and a non-participating prosecutor about the case in chambers, and invited them to influence his decisions. Third, Rittenband said PUBLICLY that he was going to put Polanski in prison “for the rest of his life”, knowing that it was a Class B felony and Polanski’s first offense which called for probation or up to 2-years in Country Jail. There’s more, but what would be the point in telling you people. I read the entire transcript, including Geimer’s testimony. The fact that she said she was “afraid” of Polanski has absolutely nothing to do with what I’ve been saying. The girl was raped! Why wouldn’t she be afraid? Duh! So, it looks like you’re right when you say that you’re not a reader. I have no interest in Polanski’s relationship with Natasha Kinski, because it has nothing to do with the points I’ve been making. Sklyer makes the incredibly obtuse remark, “What you don’t seem to realize is that Europe is not a higher authority. Nor is Polanski the higher authority. Nor is Woody Allen.” Find “Woody Allen” in any of my comments. And find the word “slut” in any of them. Find any statement that “Europe is a higher authority”. There is no point in trying to have a discussion with you clowns. Have a nice day.
John, I brought up mitigation vs. premeditation as an example of your unwillingness to meet any objection or counter to your position. Beyond your noticing that I brought it up, you didn’t address it at all, except to say “I don’t think that it could have been [premeditated].” No evidence, just your guess.
You ask what I mean when I say you think Polanski’s crime had mitigating factors: “Is this supposed to mean that I think the lack of violence made the rape any more acceptable or less of a crime?” No – it means that you said that Polanski’s crime had mitigating factors. It means what the words say. (Sir Thomas More has just bought a round for Strunk and White in the next world.) As evidence, I can requote the stuff of yours I quoted before, or the stuff of yours Bingley just quoted, or any of a dozen things (and at this point, there are dozens of things you’ve said). In reply you can only say that it’s the Chino psych team’s assessment, not yours, don’t blame the messenger – except that you cite it so frequently and insistently in defense of your position, it’s plain that you agree with it.
Then you close with shock, shock that we’re so “belligerent and self-righteous.” So, going back to my list, I see again that your alleged* rebuttal is a heavy dose of A, B, and C, and nothing at all touching any of the objections raised. Polanski ought to thank his lucky stars that you’re not his defense attorney.
* see how I got that full-circle to the ‘alleged’ that CNN used in the original report? Yay me. 😉
buhbye
John is clearly not a reasonable man. His own website puts out the idea that opposing B. Hussein is the same as being a racist.
OK. I’ll respond one more time, then I have to check into rehab to get off this site.
I thought that I had made it pretty clear that I was speaking from the prosecution’s point of view about the mitigating factors. Those issues would have come out in the psyche evaluation and the girl’s testimony. There was no weapon, physical force, or injury involved, and those things determine the nature of the crime. The fact that the defendant had been under emotional duress prior to the incident is mitigating factor that would be covered by the evaluation and the conclusion as to whether or not Polanski was sexual predator.
The girl’s testimony and the fact that it was Polanski’s first such offense, made it a Class B felony, which has specific sentencing guidelines in California. There are many kinds of rape, ranging from statutory rape to unlawful sex to forcible rape under the threat of death (a weapon) and rape resulting in physical injury or death. These things were all taken into consideration by the District Attorney’s office when it decided to accept the Chino evaluations and recommend time-served plus probation.
As to whether or not the crime was premeditated, it depends on how you define that term. I personally do not think Polanski set up this photo shoot to rape this girl. He was doing a legitimate shoot for Vogue Magazine. When he took Geimer to Jack Nicholson’s house on the second day of shooting, he didn’t have a bottle of champagne in the car, and Angelica Huston was in the house. He also didn’t know exactly what Huston would be doing that day– when she would be coming and going– so he couldn’t have planned on being alone with Geimer too far in advance.
In my opinion, he didn’t make the decision to rape her until she got into the jacuzzi. And, in his own mind, he probably thought that it would be consentual sex. Of course, there is no way to know if it was actually premeditated, but the scenario suggests that it wasn’t. There’s no evidence at all that it was. In any case, premeditation is irrelevant to the issue. He admitted to having sex with the girl. Doesn’t matter if it was a planned act or a spur of the moment decision.
“Skyler says:
October 1, 2009 at 1:45 pm
John is clearly not a reasonable man. His own website puts out the idea that opposing B. Hussein is the same as being a racist.”
You are a liar and probably a racist.
Aw… too good to last.
Still, 110+ comments, Bings! Not to mention that AoS HQ was behind your curve on this one. Sweet, bro.
Not to beat a dead horse (which John surely excels at), the Hollywood “elite” aren’t getting the support they think they are.
And I see where John is getting his talking points from. Some Hollywood git named Weinstein claims that “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion”!!!! (see the Hot Air link.)
John, start linking. You’ve lost your validity quite a while ago. It’s no longer a “by your word” thing, because your word isn’t worth shit. Well, wait, shit at one time had value and your spoken or textual form…has seemingly never had any. Oh well. Learn to argue properly in a web based environ and you might actually get some respect.
And Skylar, we’re all racist Neandertals. I thought the libs made that blatantly clear.
Well, I’ve had enough of John so he’s been banned. It’s not something I do lightly; in fact it’s only the third time I’ve done it in the history of this site.
Let’s let this die, folks.
B…b..bbbut I wanna argue!
You say Polanski’s lack of violence towards Geimer is a mitigating
factor.
“Lack of violence” – excuse me but what are you thinking – maybe I am
looking at it too simply but a grown man several times her size and
weight forcing his penis into her rectum and vagina sounds violent to
me – even if he did administer Quaaludes and alcohol to dull the pain.
He fled before sentencing to avoid punishment. If he expects to work
the system in his favor then he must be willing to be part of it and
work the system like any other inmate that thinks his sentence is
unfair – from a jail cell via appeals filed by his attorney.
The victim in this case has been dragged through this repeatedly over
the years because she had the misfortune to be raped by a famous person
– who went into hiding in plain sight while repeatedly making
headlines. His self serving behavior inflicted additional harm and
mental pain and trauma on the victim. Contrast this constant state of
scrutiny with his life of luxury and ease.
The LA prosecutors office should be charged with failure to exercise
due diligence for dragging this on so long without acting – he was not
in hiding like Osama Bin Laden – he was living and working out in the
open. As it stands now she has been repeatedly victimized by the
criminal and yes he is a criminal, the court system, the prosecutors
incompetence and willingness to deal and general laziness, the media
every single time the rip the wounds open again my repeating this story
every time his name was mentioned.
Your transparent attempt at generating buzz and blog traffic which I am
contributing to is yet another exploitation of this woman for the
personal gain or satisfaction of another – nicely done.