It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Polanski arrested ahead of extradition

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:42 AM

Polanski arrested ahead of extradition

THE Academy Award-winning film director Roman Polanski was in custody in Switzerland last night awaiting extradition on a US warrant issued 31 years ago after his guilty plea for having sex with a 13-year-old girl.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:

Related Discussion Threads:
Rosemary Kill Bill To Music

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:42 AM
There is so many strange events surrounding this guy.

Director of Rosemary's Baby (1967) - Erie satanic film.

His wife Sharon Tate murdered while pregnant (1969).
Killed by members of the Manson Family.

Manson says he got his messages from the White Album, recorded by the Beatles after their "trip" to India (1968).
Accompanied by Mia Farrow (Star of Rosemary's baby)

Farrow was also Served Divorce paper's on the set of Rosemary's baby by then husband Frank Sinatra.

John Lennon was Killed in the building he lived in 1980, the same building in which Rosemary's baby was filmed.
In Rosemary's baby, a book tells of a prominent satanist (witch) being killed in front of the building, latter in the film Rosemary (Mia Farrow) discovers he died in the lobby, like John Lennon.

Polanski pleaded guilty to raping a 13 y.o girl (1978) at Jack Nicholson house. He Fled To and has lived in France ever since...

Nearly Every Beatles album synchronizes perfectly to you guessed it... Rosemary's Baby.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:59 AM
^ huh, did not know about those eerie links. Those are....plain weird, I guess....

I've heard alot of his fans are calling for the charges to be dropped but I'm afraid that just because he directed a few okay movies does not make him exempt from the law. In my book, if you drug and rape a kid then there's no excusing it.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 05:03 AM
He is a pedophile.

Send him back and put him in jail for a long time.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 05:05 AM
reply to post by StuNice

Looks like he could possibly get bail..


posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 05:21 AM
reply to post by tribewilder

As long as he doesn't flee Switzerland.

The Girl (Now woman) doesn't want to press charges and just wants and to forget about the whole thing. I wonder if the incident had anything to do with satanism or occult sex magick rituals considering his background it would not surprise me.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 05:48 AM

Originally posted by StuNice
reply to post by tribewilder

I wonder if the incident had anything to do with satanism or occult sex magick rituals considering his background it would not surprise me.

I did wonder that....

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 06:14 AM
The woman who was the victim in this case has been trying to get them to drop the charges because she is sick and tired of having to deal with the dark feelings involved with what happened to her. It seems that the prosecutors are so eager to jail someone they are ignoring the requests of the victim involved....

Polanski victim: mother-of-three trying to forget past

The victim in the Roman Polanski sex case is now a married mother-of-three who has repeatedly asked authorities to drop charges against the man who sexually abused her as a 13-year-old.

Samantha Geimer, 45, was a starry-eyed innocent when Polanski asked her mother if he could photograph her for a fashion magazine at the Hollywood Hills home of Jack Nicholson in March 1977.

After plying the youngster with champagne and drugs and taking nude pictures of her in a hot tub, Polanski had sex with the teen despite her resistance and requests to be taken home.

YOUR SAY: Do you think Roman Polanski should be extradited?

"We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer testified to a grand jury. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realised he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be.

In a 2003 interview Geimer said she had tried to resist Polanski's advances as he led her to a bedroom.

"I said, like, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No', and then I didn't know what else to do," she said.

"We were alone, and I didn't know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I'll get to come home after this."

Polanski was later charged with rape and five other felonies before later pleading guilty to a lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, partly to spare Geimer the trauma of having to go through a trial.

Geimer has said in a past interview she was unhappy at having to recount her experiences to police and before a grand jury.

"I didn't want to do that. I didn't want to talk to anyone or tell anyone. I just felt forced to continually tell this story," she said.

"I was so angry about it. It was like - wasn't what happened bad enough, now we got to go through every single day of my life."

Geimer left Los Angeles for Hawaii in the 1980s where she has rebuilt her life with her husband with whom she has three sons.

However the enduring legal questions surrounding Polanski's flight from justice have ensured that Geimer is regularly dragged reluctantly back into the public eye despite her appeals for the case to be dropped.

"I got over it a long time ago," she has said.

"I wasn't prepared to carry a lot of bad feelings with me and further damage my life and continue the trauma of it."

In January, Geimer filed a legal declaration in Los Angeles formally requesting that the outstanding charges against Polanski be withdrawn.

She said Los Angeles prosecutors' insistence that Polanski must return to the United States before dismissal of the case could be considered as a "cruel joke being played on me".

She also voiced anger that authorities had detailed her grand jury testimony in related hearings to the case.

"True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother," she said, adding that it was time for closure.

"I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr Polanski may have caused me as a child," she said. Polanski had taken flight, she said, "because the judicial system did not work".

What has happened to the legal system if even the VICTIM cannot get them to drop a case? Is prosecuting people all about the money and prestige instead of the justice now??

I believe that he did what they say he did, but shouldn't the VICTIM in this case be the one who calls the shots? She seems to be completely in control of her faculties so it's not like she has been tricked into saying this.

[edit on 28/9/2009 by Kryties]

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:07 AM
It doesn't matter if the victim wants the charges dropped.

The state where the alleged rape still has the right to prosecute Mr. Polanski.

The victim can still be forced to testify but will be labeled as a hostile witness.

When the girl reported the drugging and rape, the state basically took over, especially because she was a minor at the time.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:09 AM
reply to post by Blanca Rose

So they think that dragging her through a decade or more of having to relive that experience is OK? Do they think this is helping the victim at all?

It's bollocks.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:17 AM
reply to post by Kryties

"I wasn't prepared to carry a lot of bad feelings with me and further damage my life and continue the trauma of it."

I think that statement of hers gets right to the point. One has to question what the point is of all this muck raking at this stage of the game. It helps no-one and has the potential to hurt many.

Many times the system just rolls on on its own accord, benefiting only those employed in it, with total disregard for anyone else.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:17 AM
reply to post by Kryties

Well, he did admit to raping her. From what I recall, he said it was consensual though.

I don't agree either that it is ok to make her go through it all again.

I'm just letting you know why they will go forward with the prosecution.

She might be able to get him to pay some sort of restituion for all she went through at the time, and for the last few decades though.

Perhaps once she realizes this, she might be more willing to testify. Mr. Polanski should have to pay for what he did, even if it is financially to the victim.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:25 AM
reply to post by Blanca Rose

Don't get me wrong, I believe Polanski did it and is a very sick individual indeed. I just think, in this case, that the victim should be referred to first as to what should happen to him. It is quite clear that she knows what she is talking about and that she has not been influenced by anyone or anything except her own desire to put it all behind her.

The legal system is obviously flawed (understatement and DUH of the century). It exists seemingly to serve only those employed within its bounds, to raise prestige and pay-packets while the public thinks that justice is being served.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:34 AM
Well, they finally got Roman. After 31 years living on the lam in France, he will finally be made to answer for his crimes. I have read that some of you believe the victim has something to do with how he will be punished, that is beside the point, and unlikely, we have to put it into perspective; he has been a fugitive from justice for over 31 years, and that alone will give him considerable jail time.

By running, all he did was dig himself a bigger hole in a legal sense. That alone will invigorate any prosecuting attorney trying make a name for them self. He will most definitely serve time for that charge. Plus, the multiple felony charges related to pedophilia, still stand, and must be faced. As soon as extradition is handled with the Swiss, he will be back in the US to face the charges. Time doesn't exonerate someone of an alleged crime. He is still innocent until proven guilty. Lets wait and see what kind of field day the MSM has with this one. More sidetracking to take our minds off the serious matters at hand.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Jakes51]

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:52 AM
i don't think the charges will be dropped, they need a new case to distract public attention and this one is perfect

as per if he should be chraded or no, i think yes, as raping 13 girl is not good, but i wonder how did she ended up at Nicholsoins house in the first place

yo, Papers will have another topic to write about for a months to come

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:35 AM
Well we all knew this was coming... he might be brilliant but he is still a criminal and should go to trail.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:35 AM
reply to post by StuNice

Stu, was it you or someone else who was just recently trying to find something about him on YouTube and every single video was censored about it? I could swear I saw a thread like that. Seems very very related.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:50 AM
An article on the BBC website says this :

The victim at the centre of the case, Samantha Geimer, has previously asked for the charges to be dropped. She has already sued Mr Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement.

Enough said. She has apparently already sued him and been awarded something as a result of it. There is absolutely no reason to pursue this any further.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:06 AM
reply to post by wayno

It is interesting that she has already been paid off. It makes me wonder if it was just hush money, though.

I don't agree with it being the end of it.

Polanski skipped town before sentencing. He should still be held responsible to serve time for statutory rape, and whatever additional charges he may get for fleeing.

Rape and drugging of a child should not be left unpunished.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:53 AM
During the 31 year he has been on the run how many other kids has he raped?

How many will he rape in the future if the case is dropped??

Locking someone up is not just punishment... it is also for the protection of other potential future victims.

I say lock him up.. the arrogance of his supporters astounds me... I heard one of them saying

"What is the world coming to, Polanski is a good man who made a mistake a long time ago, this is outrageous"

Sorry sir, but you are outrageous for suggesting that...

a) This was just a silly mistake; akin to getting drunk and then being caught urinating in a public place.

b) That because it was a "long time ago" this should now just be forgotten... as if justice has a sell by date.

One of the most evil crimes anyone can commit is crimes against the vulnerable and innocent, especially children. I understand why the victim wants the case dropped but this is not just about her!

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in