Comments on: Original court manuscripts reveal chilling details of Roman Polanski’s crime

By: Dean

Dean — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 02:50:24 +0000

were is my comment!?

By: Dean

Dean — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 02:48:37 +0000

Mmm. She said that she wasnt on the pill. I wonder if at any time the judge asked her if she was a virgin prior her encounter with mr. Polanski.
That would be an interesting fact.

By: Dean

Dean — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 02:42:19 +0000

Mmm, she said that she wasnt on the pill. I wonder if the judge ever asked her if she was a virgin prior to her encounter with Mr. Polanski. That would be an interesting fact.

By: Your Name

Your Name — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 00:06:12 +0000

Hey mike I hope he gets a hold of your wife, mother or daughter you *******!

By: Your Name

Your Name — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 00:03:55 +0000

maybe he should date your daughter??????

By: antiyank

antiyank — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:32:15 +0000

most of you people are scary..you read something and directly believe it’s true..polanski left us(*******)a(nus) because he thought he wasn’t going to have a fair trial..and i believe he’s right..who says that the girl tell the truth and nothing but the truth?can it be that she wanted to **** and was ashamed afterwards?maybe?there are many many “rapes” made that way..

By: wow

wow — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:57:48 +0000

What a douche bag. Straight to the pokey!! Can you imagine if it was say, a republican Senator instead of Polanski? These Hollywood dorks would be calling for blood…. The absolute HYPOCRISY!!!!

By: Simple Simon

Simple Simon — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:24:07 +0000

Mike, you are a whackjob. What a bunch of jibberish. This is a clear – he broke the law, he gets punished. He ran, and broke the law a second time and needs to be punished for that as well as the original crime. Its simple really.Get it smart guy?

By: Roger

Roger — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:37:29 +0000

No one says anything about abandoning other cases. Where on earth do people get that crap. If you believe that notion, then you also don’t believe that if you have enough money you can evade the authorities. Look at the Kennedy case and OJ. Both managed to either evade the authorities or avoid conviction because they could afford a legal team. Money should never be a factor in someone being able to avoid persecution. In this case justice will happen even 30 years later…

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:52:22 +0000

While the statute of limitations doesn’t strictly apply in this case the concept does. The idea is that one wrongful act is expiated by living a good moral life; in other words, your are forgiven, go out and sin no more. As far a penance goes, I think what most people are thinking of an older law, not penance, but an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; ie sharia law.

I believe in this case, since Polanski is a fugitive the legal fiction is that every moment he is free from punishment is in itself a new crime. I don’t see the value to society to prosecuting this case and abandoning others, (which they surely are doing given their budget constraints) which might give benefit to society.

For example: Let’s plea bargain a 100 real rapists or other criminals so we can prosecute a prominent sort of rapist of thirty years ago and get in the news. That’s not justice; that’s politics.