mjbonen's items Go to mjbonen's photostream
REMEMBER TO BECOME A "FOLLOWER!" Click on the sidebar!


Wednesday, September 30, 2009


The past couple of days, have echoed the arrest of Roman Polanski, in Switzerland. He was arrested as a fugitive on a U.S. warrant. I have listened and debated as to whether I should post my opinion on this matter, as it is definitely a "hot" button issue.

First...the majority of people voicing their wrath and wanting to see this now elderly man in jail, has bothered me. I have listened to barely 30 year old people (not even born when this act was perpetrated), and the majority of those plus the newscasters are all attacking this issue as if it were an event of today.

One has to realize how life was in the 70's. There was no social networking, the drug scene was rampant throughout the U.S., and the "free" movement was afoot. Please note now...I do not condone what happened to the young girl whatsoever. But the crime was dealt with, a plea deal was reached, and the judge, in wanting to make a name for himself - was going to defy the agreement and make an example of Polanski.

Since Polanski was a French citizen, he apparently felt he was being treated unfairly and fled to his homeland. France refused to extradite Polanski to the U.S. at that time and still refuses to this day.

The then 13 year old Samantha Geimer, was at the home of Jack Nicholson, for a photo shoot by Mr. Polanski for Vogue magazine. One has to question first - where was the mother and WHY did she feel she didn't need to be there with her daughter. There is some blame that needs to fall on her shoulders. And by the way...this "rape" happened on the second day of shooting, again without the mother. From the pictures taken of this girl at that time - I have to admit, she looked much older. But then again, I had young men hitting on me when I was 14, as I looked much older than my actual age. That is neither here nor there, Mr. Polanski should have kept his hands to himself.

What infuriates me, is this case was never tried, as a plea deal was made early on. Polanski was ordered to spend 90 days for a psychiatric evaluation, which he was released after 42 days - with the results being that he was deemed NOT to be a pedophile and had no mental issues.

Mr. Polanski's attorney and the prosecutor made an agreement, that was all but delivered, until Judge Rittenband CHANGED his mind and decided to set an example of Mr. Polanski and further his judicial record. (He was proven to be a corrupt judge in later years). He literally played to the cameras before, during and after this case.

No one has disputed the details from this documentary, until yesterday - when the prosecuting attorney at that time (David Wells), recanted his statement in the film. He had said that he had meetings with the judge (ex parte - without the defense being present) in strategizing the sentencing for Mr. Polanski. He now says that never happened, and he made the statement, with the belief that this film would not be aired in the United States. Something is wrong with that message, as he recants "yesterday", but the film aired over a year ago in this country. And he waited this long, why???

The judicial system at that time was proven to be very corrupt, and whether that has changed much to this day, I couldn't say. The victim has been saying for many years now, that she would like the case dismissed. She has no animus towards Polanski, and has learned to live with (not get over) what happened to her so many years ago. She has made the statement that SHE is the one suffering, as the press will not let this matter go away. I believe that she, as the victim, has to be given credence.

I have no sympathy for rapists whatsoever. But this matter happened over three decades in the past. His life has moved on, as well as the victim. He has done well with his life and career, as well as the victim and being an advocate. With this hanging over his head for all these years, I consider that punishment as well.

I think this is a waste of California taxpayer's money, at this point in time. And we know California has NO MONEY. I guarantee Mr.Polanski has the funds to fight this in foreign courts and has a cadre of supporters abroad. How will the citizens of California feel (as a whole) about spending exorbitant amounts of money, in a foreign country - to bring this man back to the states?

In my opinion, I feel Mr. Polanski has lived with this fear over his head for all these years. The victim too has had to have this matter rehashed in the media ad nauseum. When does it end? When will the victim have her closure? She has made it quite clear she does NOT want to see this man incarcerated. My belief is that her wishes should carry a great deal of weight in this matter.

So, yell at me all you want. I have had my say, and think I included all the valid points I intended. Have a great evening.





I couldnt agree more...what a waste of money...

Cali said...

Speaking as both a Californian and a woman who was 13 in the 70s, it's time to let this thing go. That's what the "victim" wants, after all. The young people of today can't understand what a drastically different time it was then. They don't remember the jokes about the definition of a virgin being an ugly sixth grader. They don't remember how common it was for teenage girls to be involved with older men. Personally, I lost my virginity at 14 to a 22 year-old. That kind of thing was very common then. Unless there was an actual forcible rape, no man was convicted of statutory rape at that time; it was unheard of.

Enough is enough. Let it go already.

Warped Mind of Ron said...

I can see your points I really do, but I'm more of the Law is the Law is the Law. I'm more offended that it has taken so long for him to be arrested as it was mentioned this is not the first time he has been out of France and arrestable.
The bottom line is he did the crime and living his life in France, while still making movies is not a punishment. Oh, btw I'm Ok with the parents getting drug into court for child neglect/endangerment too.

Nan said...

Unfucking believable. He drugged and sodomized (brutally fucked up the ass) a 13-year-old who repeatedly said no. He admitted doing it. He fled the country. Since when did being a celebrity give any convicted criminal a free pass?

By the way, your implicit blame the victim tone really, really sucks. Pedophiles everywhere thank you.

themom said...

Nan, blaming the victim was not my intent, which I believe I stated as much. I just think the entire matter needs to be reflected as to "the times - the 70's" and the social mores were definitely skewed. I never thought Polanski should get away with anything. Deals are made every day in the judicial system, and a great many we are not happy with the result. The same for that period. The judge was corrupt, a deal had been worked out, that was amenable to all, until this corrupt judge saw more in the "lights and cameras", and chose to renege on a legal arrangement.

My basic belief is that after this great length of time - and listening to this victim, it should be settled as she desires.

ReRe said...

the 70s were DIFFERENT -- Mckenzie phillips was sleeping with her dad. ewwwww.

Dr. Monkey said...

If the victim wants to move on and not prosecute him then I say move on.

jadedj said...

I am not with you on this one mom. I am with the victim, who has stated that the incident has followed her all of her life. She is a middle-aged woman now. SHE wants closure, and she should have it. But the fact is, he did it, he admitted it, he is scum. He thought he could get away with it (and actually has, thus far) because of his "position...fame...greatness as a director". Pure arrogance. Nothing other than. He has paid nothing for his actions. If that had been me...or your son...we would be writing our memoirs still in prison. Sorry...he needs to pay the piper.

As to the cost to California, are we to factor this into all criminal cases that come before it? That reasoning is weak.

Sorry mom, I love you and usually agree with every ounce of your opinions...but not this one.

Immortal Woman said...

Bottom line, money. Let the rich buy their way out, he has paid off his victim already. They made their point, now take all the money and leave him in France. And how ironic that Susan Atkins who killed Sharon Tate is in the news the same week as Sharon's husband. Her spirit will never get a moments rest.

Kulkuri said...

The victim just wants it to end, but this is not about what he did to her. It's about him leaving the country to avoid going to prison for what he did to her!! That still needs to be dealt with if we are a country of laws, or is it still that a rich man never burns???

Liberality said...

I have to disagree about this one. I'm sure she wants to move on and I can't blame her for wanting that. However, it wasn't a "rape" and she some made-up "victim", she was raped and he was quilty--period. She was 13 years old. Even the French people are beginning to rethink their defense of him.

Liberality said...

the 70s were DIFFERENT -- Mckenzie phillips was sleeping with her dad. ewwwww.

...and Mackenzie Phillips was raped by her own father, that's not called not sleeping with him. Of course you are being sarcastic here and I get that but...the term sleeping with implies consent which she didn't give. She has every right to explain why she has had personal problems and has been an addict. Jesus, it would fuck up any girl to be date raped and hooked on drugs by her own dad. And he was famous so he had a lot of power which as a kid she did not have.