Polanski Freed

[Guest fountainhall]

The Swiss Justice Ministry has just announced it will not extradite movie director Roman Polanski to the USA. He will be freed immediately from his 8 months house arrest.

[Bob]

Switzerland or not, I'm forced to wonder who was paid to make this happen. Switzerland in essence has elected to break an entradition agreement with another country (US) to somehow protect this slimeball. Amazing.

[Guest fountainhall]

Switzerland or not, I'm forced to wonder who was paid to make this happen. Switzerland in essence has elected to break an entradition agreement with another country (US) to somehow protect this slimeball. Amazing.

Don't be so quick off the mark on this one, Bob. It seems the US has only itself to blame for not getting the extradition.

 

The Swiss government declared renowned film director Roman Polanski a free man on Monday after rejecting a U.S. request to extradite him on a charge of having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl. The Swiss mostly blamed U.S. authorities for failing to provide confidential testimony about Polanski's sentencing procedure in 1977-1978 . . . The Swiss government said it had sought confidential testimony given on Jan. 26 by Roger Gunson, the Los Angeles attorney in charge of the original prosecution against Polanski. Washington rejected the request.

Polanski free, Swiss reject US extradition request - Yahoo! News

 

Besides which, am I not correct in saying the lady involved has repeatedly said in public that she does not want the extradition case to go forward?

[Gaybutton]

am I not correct in saying the lady involved has repeatedly said in public that she does not want the extradition case to go forward?

She did say that, but it's not her decision to make. This wasn't a civil matter. It was a criminal matter and that makes it up to the prosecutors and the courts, not her, whether or not to proceed no matter what the wishes of the victim may be.

 

Sometimes it seems as if big names and big money are what you need to get out of trouble. Michael Jackson comes to mind.

 

The incident may have taken place many years ago. The victim might not want the case to proceed. But the fact remains that Polanski, who supposedly was a responsible adult at the time, should have to stand trial and if found guilty go to jail like anybody else.

[Bob]

Don't be so quick off the mark on this one, Bob. It seems the US has only itself to blame for not getting the extradition.

 

I have no problem with being "quick off the mark" on this one. The Swiss authorities were furnished with the entire court file and a transcript of the proceedings. And, contrary to what Polanski claimed later and what his supporters have been saying all over the internet:

(1) Polanski,under oath and in open court, admitted he knew the girl was 13 when he had sex with her; and

(2) Polanski, under oath and in open court, acknowledged that there was no sentencing deal whatsoever and that he was fully aware that the judge could sentence him to many years in prison (the judge asked Polanski several questions to make sure that he knew that there was no sentencing deal whatsoever).

 

As to what the victim (now an adult and much wealthier due to the money Polanski paid her) says now is irrelevant to me and to the prosecutors. What the victim said then (again, it's in a transcript you can read on the net) was that he drugged her, she said "no" more than once, and he proceeded to have his way with her anyway.

 

This whole case, in my opinion, is another example of a wealthy pervert getting away with raping a child. If an "average" guy did it, he'd have gotten 10 to 20 years in prison (and rightfully so).

[Guest lvdkeyes]

I couldn't agree more with Bob and GB.

[Guest fountainhall]

This whole case, in my opinion, is another example of a wealthy pervert getting away with raping a child.

I know less of the background than perhaps I should. I don't doubt he should be behind bars But no-one seems to have commented on the point I raised from the original article -

 

The Swiss government said it had sought confidential testimony given on Jan. 26 by Roger Gunson, the Los Angeles attorney in charge of the original prosecution against Polanski. Washington rejected the request.

Are you saying that Polanski paid off the US Justice Department as well? If not, then why would the Justice Department jeopardise their case by failing to agree to the request? After all, after goodness knows how many years, they finally had Polanski virtually in their hands!

[Gaybutton]

The way I see it is I like Polanski's movies. He went through hell at the hands of Charles Manson's gang when they tortured and murdered his wife and unborn child. He is fabulously wealthy. The incident took place a very long time ago. The victim apparently doesn't care about it anymore or maybe she was paid off not to care about it anymore.

 

None of that should excuse him or protect him from the same legal processes anyone else would have to face. He's damned lucky Switzerland is refusing to extradite him.

[Bob]

Are you saying that Polanski paid off the US Justice Department as well? If not, then why would the Justice Department jeopardise their case by failing to agree to the request? After all, after goodness knows how many years, they finally had Polanski virtually in their hands!

 

There's no basis to suggest I said that....as I didn't.

 

When it comes to extradition agreements (treaties), a country has agreed to extradite for a given offense (it doesn't apply to misdemeanors nor does it apply in many cases to "political" offenses)and also agrees not to attempt to "retry" the case. Here, Polanski, expressly contrary to his sworn testimony in court, has been suggesting that he had an agreement with the judge whereby he would only be sentenced to some short period of time; as such, he somehow got the Swiss to look behind the conviction (by guilty plea, of course). Unfortunately, the transcript of the proceedings absolutely contradict what Polanski and his lawyers have been saying and it's absolutely inexplicable to me how Polanski pulled this off [which is why I questioned if somebody on the Swiss end was paid off - given the facts are uncontroverted and there was really no basis (legal, anyway) for the Swiss to deny the extradition].

 

The testimony of the 13-year-old before the grand jury can be found here: Victim's Grand Jury Testimony

 

Even though the victim's testimony is rather sad (Polanski's giving her champagne, a qualude, asking her to pose nude for photos, getting into a jacuzzi with her without clothes on, and ultimately having his way with her after she said "no"), more pertinent to all of this is the transcript of the proceedings where Polanski pleaded guilty. That transcript can be found here: Guilty Plea Transcript

 

It's just my opinion but nobody ought to form an opinion about the matter without reading those two transcripts. I'd be interested in your opinion after you read them.

[Guest fountainhall]

He's damned lucky Switzerland is refusing to extradite him.

1. There's no basis to suggest I said that....as I didn't . . . It's just my opinion but nobody ought to form an opinion about the matter without reading those two transcripts. I'd be interested in your opinion after you read them.

2. When it comes to extradition agreements (treaties), a country has agreed to extradite for a given offense (it doesn't apply to misdemeanors nor does it apply in many cases to "political" offenses)and also agrees not to attempt to "retry" the case

Bob, I have taken the liberty of highlighting 2 areas of your post to which I shall respond.

 

1. I didn't suggest it, Bob. I asked a question - and you have supplied the answer, thank you. And I have now read the two transcripts. Thank you again for these. They make fascinating - and unpleasant - reading. But I do note from the Probation Officer’s Report of 9-19-77 (page 27) “However, jail is not being recommended at the present time. The present offense appears to have been spontaneous and an exercise of poor judgement by the defendant . . . It is believed that incalculable emotional damage could result from incarcerating the defendant whose own life has been a seemingly unending series of punishments.”

 

But, with all respect, I do not think your first point is pertinent to the decision made yesterday in Switzerland. Why? Well, I have been doing my own reading up since my last post. In my view, the Swiss judgement has not so much been about the nature of the crime. It has been far more about the manner (some would argue “shenanigans” is a more appropriate word in this case) in which the US justice system came about the original sentencing. There seems little doubt that the prosecution (not the defence team) agreed to reduce the various charges to just one and that the judge in the case imposed a 90-day sentence, which Polanski served. He was released after completing approximately half the time. The judge, a man with some notoriety and who clearly enjoyed being in the limelight, then appeared to change his mind. This from today’s Guardian newspaper in London -

 

There is a longstanding dispute in the US over what happened in the case after Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse. The defence says that the judge at the time, Laurence Rittenband, now dead, had agreed in meetings with Polanski's lawyers to simply sentence him to a 90-day diagnostic study. But Rittenband apparently later changed his mind and summoned Polanski for more severe sentencing, by which time the director had fled to France.

Roman Polanski freed from house arrest | Film | The Guardian

 

No matter what the crime, if a judge has agreed in Court to reduce the charges from several to one, if he has agreed to the request of the prosecutor – not the defense team, note – for a 90 day sentence, made a ruling and then imposed that sentence, if a defendant has then returned from exile to serve the sentence and thereafter, in the absence of any new evidence, is led to believe that this decision made by the judge may be changed on the whim of the aforesaid judge - then, had it been me, I am not sure if I would have waited around to hear what was about to happen.

 

This is the tenor of another article in today's The Guardian -

 

The question today is really this: how did we get to this Kafka-esque situation whereby a man who had already served time in prison for a crime he admitted committing suddenly finds himself arrested again by overzealous authorities in a foreign land, sent to prison, then confined to house arrest for nine months, 33 years after the facts? "But he fled justice!" Polanski's detractors would reply. As admirably shown in the rigorous documentary made in 2008 by American director Marina Zenovich – Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired – in 1978, Roman Polanski simply had the guts to flee the iniquitous justice of the Los Angeles court and celebrity-obsessed Judge Rittenband, whose gross misconduct is today officially acknowledged by all . . . As law professor Ronald Sokol wrote on the case in the New York Times:

 

"There is social value in discouraging criminals from fleeing the jurisdiction. There is value in seeing that justice is done and in showing that no one is above the law. But those values can erode over time if the circumstances which gave rise to the need for justice have vanished. To some, belated enforcement will appear arbitrary, a ritual of form over substance. When the state threatens imprisonment, it must be seen to act in an even-handed manner. If not, it mocks the very rule of law."

The prurient hounding of Roman Polanski is over at last | Agnes Poirier | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

2. As to the Swiss authorities ruling of the extradition request, this is from yesterday’s New York Times –

 

The turning point in the case occurred in mid-March, when Mr. Polanski’s lawyers disclosed in an appeals brief that Roger Gunson, a now-retired lawyer who originally prosecuted the case, had given sealed testimony describing a plan by Judge Laurence J. Rittenband, the original judge, to limit Mr. Polanski’s sentence to a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, a portion of which Mr. Polanski had served during his 42 days in Chino State Prison.

 

Courts here refused to open Mr. Gunson’s testimony, which was taken provisionally, because he was gravely ill, and was supposed to be used at Mr. Polanski’s eventual sentencing. But Mr. Polanski’s legal team described the testimony in court filings that were widely described by media outlets.

 

The Swiss authorities, without success, requested access to the Gunson account, arguing that it would have established whether the judge had assured Mr. Polanski that time he spent in a psychiatric unit would constitute the whole of his period of imprisonment. “If this were the case, Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence, and therefore both the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation,” the Swiss Justice Ministry said in a statement . . . Monday’s decision by the Swiss was presumably a boost for Marina Zenovich, a documentary filmmaker whose “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired” brought the case to new prominence in 2008 by airing interviews in which prosecutors and others described Judge Rittenband’s claimed missteps.

Swiss Reject U.S. Request to Extradite Polanski - NYTimes.com

 

Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, a justice ministry official in Bern, is quoted in various media today as saying “there were many examples of the US refusing to carry out Swiss extradition requests.” So, to my untutored eye, it seems to work both ways.

 

How come the US justice department refused to hand over the Gunson testimony? What is in that testimony that it does not want the world to see? The very act of withholding what might be something crucial to the case, to me devalues the case in its entirety. The Swiss apparently agreed.

[Guest fountainhall]

Apologies! In my earlier long post, I have mistakenly stated that it was the prosecution which requested the 90 day sentence. It should of course read the defence! As to what is contained in the Gunson testimony, some reports on the internet indicate that it confirms the promise made by the judge re the 90-day sentence. It certainly contains information that the LA District Attorney, Stephen L. Cooley, does not want in the public domain. In late March, he and others filed what is described as "vigorous opposition" to making it public.

[Bob]

If you read the hearing transcript, I'm hoping that you noted that the judge made it very clear (and Polanski responded more than once that he understood) that there was no sentencing deal with him. You do agree that's what was said in court, right? Based on that testimony, how could anyone possibly say that the court or judge was part of some sentencing deal? Even if one argues that the prosecutor suggested to Polanski or his lawyer that only a 90-day sentence would be given, everybody knows that the prosecutor can't limit what the judge decides to do (and, even though Polanski's lawyer surely made Polanski aware of that, it doesn't matter as the judge made it clear to Polanski and Polanski acknowledged under oath in open court that he understood it).

 

And hopefully you noticed that the judge explained clearly to Polanski why he was being sent for the psychiatric study prior to being sentenced (the reason being to determine if Polanski had other history of sexual events with children and/or if he was a sexual predator who was likely to re-offend) and that the judge made it clear that the ultimate sentence would be affected by that report (and, again, Polanski verbally said in court he understood that).

 

My theory....and it's just a theory....is Polanski's choice to flee was based on what he knew after the psychiatric study was completed was the likelihood that the psychiatric report was going to cause him some problems. I would like to read that report but it won't possibly become public until the sentencing occurs.

 

Polanski, like anybody else, ought to pay for what he did.

[Guest jomtien]

If you read the hearing transcript, I'm hoping that you noted that the judge made it very clear (and Polanski responded more than once that he understood) that there was no sentencing deal with him. You do agree that's what was said in court, right?

 

 

Your theory, of course, assumes that what was said in court on the record reflects what was said off the record beforehand. There would be no reason to think that the American system of justice is anything but honest, upstanding and completely above board, correct?

[Bob]

Your theory, of course, assumes that what was said in court on the record reflects what was said off the record beforehand. There would be no reason to think that the American system of justice is anything but honest, upstanding and completely above board, correct?

 

Unbelievable. You're suggesting judicial misconduct occurred here without any basis to make that claim.

 

What was said and acknowledged in open court is laid out for you on a silver platter. Now, before you suggest that the judge gave private and contrary assurances to Polanski or his lawyer beforehand, why don't you share with us what you know about (1) whether there were any discussions at all by the judge that aren't on the record, and (2) what was said.

[Guest fountainhall]

If you read the hearing transcript, I'm hoping that you noted that the judge made it very clear (and Polanski responded more than once that he understood) that there was no sentencing deal with him. You do agree that's what was said in court, right? Based on that testimony, how could anyone possibly say that the court or judge was part of some sentencing deal?

Yes, I have indeed read the transcripts. I have also read the letter from Loeb and Loeb, the attorney for the family of the victim confirming its strong desire to drop most of the charges – to avoid the necessity of the girl’s name being made public.

 

As I have stated on other threads, I am no lawyer. Over the decades, this case must have exercised the talents of a galaxy of specialist lawyers and so I can only base my opinions and comment on what I read, trying where possible to read up as much as I can.

 

Regarding Polanski’s testimony, yes, I noted the judge’s comments. But I also noticed something which I, as a layman, find slightly strange. On page 7, the prosecutor, Mr. Gunson, makes it very clear in his questioning that Polanski is aware that the maximum sentence is between 1 and 15 years. But then there is a question: “Do you understand it is also possible that you could be placed on probation, with or without being required to serve up to one year in the Country Jail?” Now why would he ask that particular question, I wonder? Odd!

 

He then asks if Polanski is aware that it is the judge who will decide the matter. Polanski confirms. In fact, Gunson asks three separate questions, to each of which Polanski answers “The Judge”.

 

In other words, Gunson keeps hammering home the point that it is the judge who will decide. I agree with your comment that Polanski confirms no deal has been made, and it is perfectly clear that it is the judge, once again, who will decide the sentence only after the psychiatric report. So on the official Court record and papers, there is definitely no deal.

 

On the other hand, you surely can't really expect that any behind-the-scenes bit of horse-trading would be quoted in Court documents! It would only surface if one or more of the parties revealed it and it was subsequently proved. But given what the public knows about the flakiness of this particular judge and the LA DA’s continuing “vigorous opposition” to Gunson’s later testimony being made public (what is in there that he does not want the public to know, I wonder?), there must unquestionably be a possibility that something might have been privately agreed beforehand. And where there is an issue of doubt, especially under these circumstances, my view is that any doubt has to be in a defendant’s favour – no matter how terrible the crime.

 

 

why don't you share with us what you know about (1) whether there were any discussions at all by the judge that aren't on the record, and (2) what was said.

I posted the above comment before I saw this one - and I think I still have enough edit time to respond!

 

Come off it, Bob! You can't seriously mean what you just wrote! Any such discussions would have been extremely private and it would further be extremely unlikely that any formal or informal record was made. No one can prove anything - except perhaps that testimony of Gunson which the LA DA will not release - for reasons we can only guess at. And since that testimony may well shed light on who agreed what with whom in advance, the failure to release it into the public record indicates to me that the DA has something to hide. That alone is grounds for doubt that the official record contains the entire truth behind this dreadful case.

[Guest jomtien]

Unbelievable. You're suggesting judicial misconduct occurred here without any basis to make that claim.

 

What was said and acknowledged in open court is laid out for you on a silver platter. Now, before you suggest that the judge gave private and contrary assurances to Polanski or his lawyer beforehand, why don't you share with us what you know about (1) whether there were any discussions at all by the judge that aren't on the record, and (2) what was said.

 

I am expressing a skeptical view of the American justice system. What happened in this particular case? None of us know. You take the assorted facts/statements from all the sources, you weigh them and you come up with a viewpoint. I have no more faith in the truth of sworn testimony than I do in the stories in the Bible. Both make interesting reading.

[Bob]

But then there is a question: Do you understand it is also possible that you could be placed on probation, with or without being required to serve up to one year in the Country Jail? Now why would he ask that particular question, I wonder? Odd!

 

If it helps, that same statement is made in every hearing involving the provision of a guilty plea (with changes, of course, only for those pleading guilty to offenses that carry a mandatory mininimum prison sentence). So, nothing unusual to me (if it wasn't there, it would be unusual).

 

......Gunson keeps hammering home the point that it is the judge who will decide. I agree with your comment that Polanski confirms no deal has been made, and it is perfectly clear that it is the judge, once again, who will decide the sentence only after the psychiatric report. So on the official Court record and papers, there is definitely no deal.

 

We're on the same page there. But then to go on to say that "there must unquestionably be a possibility that something might have been privately agreed beforehand" is beyond me. I'm somewhat of a believer that a person's testimony in court is a lot more valuable (i.e., credible) that what he or his lawyer suggests afterwards. There's a possibility of anything happening in a theoretical sense (hey, it's "theoretically possible" that Polanski had sex with the judge!) but I tend not to believe it when there's no evidence of it and it is in direct opposition as to what the persons (Polanski and his lawyer and the prosecutor and the judge) said in court.

 

 

No one can prove anything

 

We're on the same page there too. The only evidence on the table is that there was no sentencing deal. Again, anybody suggesting there was one or might have been would be pure speculation, right?

 

I have no clue what the prosecutor said after the fact in his private testimony. Nor does anyone else except who was present for the testimony or who later read the transcript. I personally wouldn't suggest it supports or doesn't support any position....because I have no basis to say one way or the other.

 

The transcript of the plea hearing seemed absolutely standard and normal to me (i.e., there's nothing out of the ordinary there). I have no issue with the prosecutor for what he said on the record as his statements also seemed rather normal; however, I do take issue with the prosecutor for offering the plea deal to Polanski in the first place. Polanski was allowed to plea to a low-grade felony in exchange for dropping of much serious charges (including child rape) but perhaps that was done (or at least hopefully so) only for the benefit of the 13-year-old.

[Bob]

I am expressing a skeptical view of the American justice system.

 

No system is perfect and mistakes are occasionally made but, overall (just my opinion) what we inherited from the English system has worked quite well in 99%+ of all situations.

 

What I was reacting to before was your statement that "Your theory, of course, assumes that what was said in court on the record reflects what was said off the record beforehand." You were suggesting, I gathered, that there was something in this particular case that was said off the record by the judge beforehand? If so, have any particular reason other than tea leaves to believe that? If not, then why say it?

 

I don't have any theories here (other than my personal theory as stated as to why Polanski fled after the psychiatric evaluation). And, heck, I'm even taking Polanski at his word here (at least as to what he said in court under oath).

[Guest travelerjim]

WOW!

 

What fine legal Eagles both of you are...

with such good legal analysis...arguments and researched supportive documentation...pro and con.

 

Fountainhall as "Matlock" the Defense Attorney...

 

Bob as "Perry Mason" the Prosecuting Attorney.

 

 

And we have them both here on GT

 

tj

[Guest fountainhall]

Fountainhall as "Matlock" the Defense Attorney...

Thanks tj – but could I not have had a more flattering persona? Given a choice, I’d be happy to be Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird. I might even go with Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich

 

We're on the same page

So as not to drag out this thread, Bob and I do agree on all but one of the key issues. Polanski was guilty of a very serious crime. Nothing changes that fact. The court transcripts are very clear. I have now found a copy of the second court transcript of September 19, 1977 following Polanski’s psychiatric evaluation in which the judge permits a 90-day stay to allow Polanski to complete a movie (from page 31 in the file below). Again, there is zero evidence of a deal -

 

Filing opposing release of Gunson testimony

 

None of us can know what private deal or deals were reached between the judge, the DA and defense counsel – if any. There does remain, however, an element of doubt, if only because of the present DA’s absolute refusal to release that private later testimony of the prosecutor, Gunson. As I have said, what does the DA not want in the public record at this stage?

 

According to Polanski’s lawyers, Gunson testified that in 1977 he tried to challenge now-deceased Superior Court Judge Lawrence Rittenband but his supervisors prevented him from filing it after they consulted with the judge. Gunson wanted Rittenband disqualified from the case because of misconduct, the filings state.

DA Opposes Polanski on Sealed Testimony - CBS News

 

Speculation? Yes. But surely the obvious way to prove or disprove it is just to release that testimony.

[Bob]

Bob as "Perry Mason" the Prosecuting Attorney.

 

Lol, TJ.

 

I used to get a kick out of the line which I think (if I recall right) was attributed to trial attorney Gerry Spence. It went something like this: Hell, I've got the same record as Perry Mason....but none of my clients were innocent!

[Guest jomtien]

No system is perfect and mistakes are occasionally made but, overall (just my opinion) what we inherited from the English system has worked quite well in 99%+ of all situations.

 

What I was reacting to before was your statement that "Your theory, of course, assumes that what was said in court on the record reflects what was said off the record beforehand." You were suggesting, I gathered, that there was something in this particular case that was said off the record by the judge beforehand? If so, have any particular reason other than tea leaves to believe that? If not, then why say it?

 

 

 

If you wish to take half my statement and then suggest what I meant from that, I can't respond to it. Tea leaves? Funny. Very funny.

[Bob]

If you wish to take half my statement and then suggest what I meant from that, I can't respond to it. Tea leaves? Funny. Very funny.

 

Wasn't trying to be funny. I actually was trying to elicit from you why you were suggesting that private (off-the-record) understandings or agreements were made by the judge. That's a pretty simple question. Any response to that one?

[Guest jomtien]

Wasn't trying to be funny. I actually was trying to elicit from you why you were suggesting that private (off-the-record) understandings or agreements were made by the judge. That's a pretty simple question. Any response to that one?

 

 

I don't know how many different ways I can point out that my skepticism is with the judicial system in general and not only this case in particular. So I give up.

[KhorTose]

I have found this interchange fascinating. In the end, I have to come down on the side that says what the Judge and the prosecutor said in private should be released. It clearly appears to me that it was pertinent and related to the sentencing in some way. One of our cornerstones of our justice system is a fair and open trail, and to me that should clearly apply to any discussion about sentencing. Simply, they should release the document, or let Polanski go based on a simple principal of common sense that says, "If you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing."