voranis
-
Posts
590 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by voranis
-
-
Did Robert Osborne do any commentary for My Favorite Brunette ? I didn't record it because it's available on DVD and supposedly he only does commentary for the first four movies of the night, but I noticed he did commentary for the fifth movie, Road to Bali, which I only caught the beginning of after Road to Utopia. So I am wondering if he did commentary for Brunette as well.
I wish they would include in the schedule which movies he is going to do commentary for since the number seems to vary, and it's not always clear which holidays he does them for, either.
-
> {quote:title=gagman66 wrote:}{quote}
> hamradio
>
> Jean was indeed a great one, and her death caught me off guard. The quick tribute is great, Sometimes it takes quite a bit longer, hence Anita Page. However, I am disappointed that *BUCK PRIVATES* will be pre-empted. TCM hasn't run this film in several years.
I am disappointed that Buck Privates will be pre-empted, too, although Jean Simmons is great and deserves a tribute.
Buck Privates will air on March 6 but it won't air in the evening like it was going to on January 29, so we won't get Robert Osborne's commentary about it, which I was really looking forward to.
-
> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote}
> Lol, I remembered that cartoon that use to be on TV but never watched it. I have a Color Computer video game called "Q-bert" and for some reason I always called that charactor with the funny nose a "Snork". Just some weird mental connection I guess.
>
Q-bert was one of my favorite video arcade (and now, online) games. Now that you mention it, he does look like a Snork. And I have never watched an episode of the Snorks either, but sometimes I see the beginning or ending of The Snorks on Boomerang coming on before or after another cartoon I am watching.
-
> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote}
>
>
By the way, I like your Happy Holidays image with the squid at the bottom. Hmm, if Santa Claus can conquer the Martians, maybe it's time for a film in which he conquers a giant squid? I've got it: Santa Claus is delivering presents to the Snorks (if you don't know what Snorks are, you don't want to know) and is attacked by a giant squid. Santa must teach the giant squid the true meaning of Christmas. (Maybe with the help of Snow Miser and Heat Miser.)
-
> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote}
> The updated version was extra footage of an adult Architeuthis caught. It didn't live very long.
>
> Don't confuse this with the capture of a Colossal squid that was accidentally captured and was put on ice to study.
I saw an updated version of "Giant Squid: Caught on Camera" earlier this year or last (I think it was in the summer) that had footage of the adult in it. It had been updated since the original which had only footage of the juvenile. The updated version I saw was not of the Colossal squid. It sounds like what was shown on Christmas Eve was just a repeat of the updated version I saw earlier this year or last. "Giant Squid: Caught on Camera" originally aired in 2006 or 2007 with footage of the juvenile and was updated to show footage of the adult in 2008 or early 2009.
> Seeing this makes one think twice about deep sea diving doesn't it.
It certainly does! I also saw "Squid Invasion" earlier this year (at the same time they showed the updated Caught on Camera, I think) and they said even though the squid were too deep to be a danger to swimmers, divers were definitely staying clear of the area until the squid moved on.
-
> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote}
> What I watched last night probually will go down in the books as the weirdest lineup.
>
> "Giant Squid Caught on Camera" (updated since last airung)
>
> "Squid Invasion" (Humboldt).
>
> What you see is the *first time* in history, the adult Architeuthis has ever been seen alive - caught on camera by Tsunemi Kubodera. You don't want to know whats in his Christmas stocking!
>
The adult giant squid was caught on camera in 2006 by the same team that first videotaped the juvenile one. I thought I saw the updated version of "Giant Squid: Caught on Camera" earlier this year or last on the Science and Discovery Channels, and it had been updated to include the footage of the adult. Was the version you saw on Christmas Eve a brand-new update for Christmas Eve, and if so, what was different from the last updated version that showed footage of the adult?
-
> {quote:title=talkietime wrote:}{quote}
> The Studio Murder Mystery (1932), another of the Van Dine Vitaphone shorts, was shown this morning following The Thin Man. It seems to me than none of the Van Dine mystery shorts (shown beginning in May) has appeared in the online schedule.
They have listed some of the Van Dine mystery shorts in the online schedule in the past, but they're not consistent about it. I caught part of The Studio Murder Mystery today since I was recording The Thin Man, but I didn't get all of it.
I agree these should always be listed in the schedule. I wish they were available on DVD.
-
> {quote:title=sineast wrote:}{quote}
> Poor old Roman. First the Nazis, then the Commies, and then some two-bit criminal.
> Yes, he has suffered. So he has the right to rape one 13-year old girl. Heck, all he's
> been through, maybe throw in a eleven and twelve year old for good measure. Because,
> after all, he's had a tough life, and that trumps everything.
Well said. Yeah, poor old Roman. And also, he's a brilliant artiste! And he's suffered enough, living in France and all.
Sarcasm aside, you'd think all the tragedy in his life would have made him more sensitive to basic human rights and that he wouldn't have violated a 13-year old girl.
This guy showed complete disregard for the law, human decency, and human rights by **** a 13-year old girl. Sorry, Whoopi Goldberg, it was "rape rape."
Then when it looks like he might have to do real prison time (because that's a lot rougher than a psych eval), he flees. He didn't flee because of the alleged judicial misconduct. He fled because the consequence of that (if it really happened) would have been real prison time. As Amy Argetsinger of The Washington Post said on Reliable Sources today, most defendants in this situation would have stayed within the legal system, even if there was judicial misconduct, and let the lawyers fix it on appeal (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0910/04/rs.01.html):
>ARGETSINGER: My bias is not just as a former 13-year-old girl, but as the daughter of a judge. Yes, I mean, people are going to get wrapped in the whole legal -- oh, well, this judge was going to railroad him. You still have to answer to the judge.
>
>And look, he may come back here and they may decide, look, OK, it's done, no more jail time. But you have to wrap it up. You have to come back. You have to let the judge decide.
>
>And you know what? If the judge is crazy or unfair, there's an appeals process. And people are making the argument that he should somehow be immune from all of that?
But Roman Polanski again showed a complete disregard for the law by fleeing. He thinks he is above the law. Worse, he doesn't even appear to be remorseful about what he did:
>KURTZ: And in addition to everything else, Lisa Bloom, it seems to me from everything I've read and heard that we have a lack of remorse on Polanski's part. I mean, here's a quote that he give to the British magazine "Tatler" back in 1980, and I have to clean it up for the audience.
>
>"If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see. But young girls, judges want to (blank) young girls, juries want to (blank) young girls. Everyone wants to (blank) young girls."
>
>I mean, he just doesn't even seem to even acknowledge that people might consider this a pretty hideous crime.
>
>BLOOM: Yes, he is called prudish for considering it a crime for a 43- year-old man to have sex with a 13-year-old girl. He has not ever shown any remorse as far as I can tell, and I have scoured the record from 1977 to the present. I have found absolutely nothing.
>
>Even last year, in the HBO documentary, he smirks at the comment that he likes young women. I mean, he really has shown absolutely no remorse.
>
>And, Whoopi, it is "rape" rape when a girl says no, when she says stop, when she makes up a lie that she has asthma, begging him to take her home. A 13-year-old cannot consent to sex with a 43-year-old man. And you know what we call sex without consent? We call it rape.
I feel no sympathy for this man. He's not really a man--he's a monster.
-
I was just watching CNN's "Reliable Sources" and TCM's own Ben Mankiewicz was on the program talking about the Polanski case. Mr. Mankiewicz said even if there was judicial misconduct, Polanski should still have to come back to the U.S. and take his medicine.
The Washington Post reporter on the show (don't have her name yet) said that even if Polanski was being "railroaded," there is an appeals process and Polanski should have gone that route rather than fleeing.
Legal analyst Lisa Bloom said she has talked to L.A. District Attorney Cooper and the D.A. said that since formal sentencing never took place, all the original charges against Mr. Polanski are still open.
I also read the following at: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/01/polanski.prosecutor.admits.lie/#cnnSTCText:
>A retired prosecutor whose comments in a 2008 HBO documentary threatened to derail a 31-year-old sex case against film director Roman Polanski now says he lied. David Wells told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Thursday that he "buttered up" his role in the Polanski case for the documentary crew. He said he lied about trying to goad a judge to sentence Polanski to prison in 1978 for having sex with a 13-year-old girl.
>
>Wells' comments in "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" raised questions of judicial misconduct and spawned Polanski's most recent effort to get the case dismissed. But the legal challenge stalled when Polanski refused to return to the United States, where he faced certain arrest.
>
>"I made these imprudent comments, just to liven it up a little," Wells said. "In retrospect, it was a bad thing to do, and I never knew this thing was going to be shown in the United States."
> Wells now says he never spoke with the judge about the Polanski case, as he had claimed in the documentary. "I never discussed this case with [the judge] at any time," Wells told Blitzer.
>
>Asked why he should be believed now, Wells said, "I'm destroying my character in public and everybody in the world knows about it. ... I don't like admitting this."
>
>He agreed to take a polygraph test to set the record straight.
>
>Blitzer challenged Wells to a polygraph test, and he agreed to take one if his former employers at the Los Angeles County, California, District Attorney's office allow it. "I'm not going to do anything more to hamper the District Attorney's case," he said.
It's hard to know whether the prosecutor was lying now or then--lying then, to get the spotlight for the documentary, or lying now in saying he lied back then so he can get back in the spotlight now that Polanski's back in the news. If he told me the sky was blue, I wouldn't be sure whether to believe it.
>"I am astonished that he has now changed his story," Marina Zenovich, the documentary's director, said in an e-mailed statement. "It is a sad day for documentary filmmakers when something like this happens."
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. Just shocked. I thought everything presented in a documentary was absolute fact. I thought it was only sworn testimony in court that couldn't be trusted...
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> voranis,
> I'm going to add one more thing, because I think it is extremely relevant, and for me personally it has been very persuasive in how I feel about the whole case. I do not expect everyone who reads it will be as persuaded as I was. However, these are the words of the victim. If someone doesn't think her version of the events is reliable, then just about everything she ever said in regards to the case should be questioned. However, her words seem to me to have the ring of truth. And she doesn't pretend that Polanski didn't do something awful, but at the same time, and I admire her for this very much, she does not seem bitter.
I'm glad you posted what the victim said so I don't have to track it down. :-) I was going to try to find it after you asked me to read it. Many victims move on with their life, and it's good that they are able to do so. Some have problems for years due to the trauma. Some never recover psychologically from it. I admire her in that that she is not bitter about it.
I don't think the victim is lying. I think she and her defense counsel may have received incorrrect information about the firmness of the deal from the prosecutor. She will be perfectly credible in her interview in the documentary (if there was one) because she believed what she was told--after all, it's rare that a prosecutor would lie or be involved in any kind of malfeasance...but it does happen sometimes. I think there is a possibility that someone in the prosecutor's office either has lied about the firmness of the deal, or there was a miscommunication during the change in prosecutors. The prosecutor who was removed said he was removed because there were concerns about him being too close to the case and him meddling in the investigation--according to the L.A. Times story, he made several recommendations to the judge about sentencing and he was removed because of inappropriate communications with the judge, although the prosecutor denies they were inappropriate.
I acknowledge it's just as likely--perhaps more so--that the judge changed his mind, or reneged on the deal, if that is how you see it. I just think there is reasonable doubt as to whether he did. Reasonable doubt is not the standard needed for this, of course, but my opinion is that the handling of this is clouded enough that one cannot say with absolute certainty that Polanski already received a formal sentence that he already served. I think the warrant needs to remain in effect until he can be brought to the U.S. to sort this out. I think all the attorneys involved may need to be brought back in and questioned...perhaps on the stand. (This is one of the reasons Wells was removed as prosecutor...concerns he would be called to testify on the stand.) I doubt, though, that Polanski would ever willingly agree to come back to the U.S. to sort it out as long as the warrant is in effect.
My view (and this is the tradition and law of our courts) is--harsh as it seems to say it--that prosecution is not solely about the wishes of the victim. If it were, many cases would not be prosecuted, because some rape victims (talking mainly about adults here, as children are too young to make an informed decision about this) know that nothing that is done to the rapist is going to undo what happened or make them feel any better at all. Some rape victims find justice and strength in the resolution of the case with the rapist put away behind bars. It varies with the personality of the individual. But the state has an interest in prosecuting because (1) there must be an accountability and punishment for one's actions, and (2) for the benefit of society, it helps deter some other would-be rapists in the future. I know there are all kinds of studies about how there is no deterrence and I agree there are some individuals who will never be deterred because they have psychological problems and don't care about the consequences, or they think they are so clever they won't get caught. But in spite of all the studies, my understanding of of basic human nature is that there is a segment of the population who haven't quite reached the level of the non-deterrable individuals, and these are people who would contemplate committing a crime if the consequences after getting caught were not so severe.
I have another question. There's a lot of talk that the Swiss will not extradite him. If there is no extradition deal already worked out or in talks with the U.S., why did the Swiss arrest/detain him in the first place? It seems to me if the Swiss were never planning to extradite him, they would not have arrested him in the first place. Surely they didn't do it just for kicks...
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> Nearly everything they said seemed plausible to me. Maybe we should just agree to disagree?
Yep, that's all we can do for now. I still need to see the documentary at some point, to be able to make a really fair evaluation of it, but I don't want to buy the DVD because I don't want money going to something I suspect may be biased. I have HBO so maybe they will re-air it now that Polanski is in the news again.
And yes, I can watch the documentary in a fair manner even though I have some preconceived suspicions. As a matter of fact, I was told in college by some that I would make a better judge than a lawyer, because I was too fair-minded to be able to argue passionately enough for one side or the other. I was on a jury trial once in which during the selection process the defense counsel asked me if I had any friends who were police officers, and I said yes. They then asked me the racial makeup of the neighborhood in which I lived, which was predominantly white. The defendant was African-American, so I was relieved that it seemed likely I would be struck from the jury, because I didn't want to serve on such a controversial case. But my heart sank when the defense counsel then asked me if, as a software programmer, I was able to evaluate a problem within a given set of parameters, and I unfortunately had to answer yes. And then they accepted me, to my regret. And I was forced during the trial to vote for sentencing which I thought personally was too harsh, because I had to follow the guidelines and parameters outlined for the case--so it actually worked against what the defense counsel hoped for. If I could have written the sentencing laws myself, they would have been less harsh. I was contemplating asking the judge to be removed from the jury because of my personal conflict, but then I remembered that I had promised that I could deliver a verdict and a sentence within a set of parameters. So I stayed on the jury and I did it, much as I hated having to do it.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > But if we don't hold criminals to the same standard as everyone else, then we are putting criminals above everyone else.
>
> Sorry, if you misunderstood what I'd said. I didn't mean to imply that the "divide" so to speak was to be between criminals and everybody else. I meant a divide between those who, by virtue of doing it for a living, should know all the fine legal points about law enforcement.
>
> For example, how we should be more concerned with a police officer understanding the importance of reading suspects their Miranda rights, than with whether or not a suspect already knows their Miranda rights. If the police officer doesn't know or understand why these rights are important, it could jeopardize the case of the person being arrested.
>
> But, if even in that context you disagree with it, then I respect that. I respect that you don't agree with what I said.
Well, thanks. I also want to take this opportunity to apologize if any of my comments were too personal or offensive. I try to stick to the facts but sometimes I still get carried away.
I believe officers must read them their rights, but I can't see a criminal walking because they weren't read their rights. Punish the officers for not reading them their rights, read the defendants their rights, throw out any info obtained before their rights were read, and reset the case...but don't let the criminal walk. This is another reason I could not have been an attorney :-) --while I believe the reading of the rights is important, I don't agree with letting the criminal get away free because of it.
-
According to this story in the LA Times which covered the HBO documentary:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/03/local/me-polanski3
>In the motion, Polanski's lawyers contend that during the high-profile proceeding, Judge Lawrence Rittenband, now deceased, had improper discussions about the case with David Wells, a deputy district attorney who had been removed from the prosecution.
>
>Wells, now retired, told the documentary makers that he talked to the judge about what sentence Polanski should receive. Under the terms of the plea deal, the judge was to determine sentencing based on the recommendation of the Probation Department and the arguments of lawyers.
>
>According to court papers, Rittenband wanted to sentence Polanski to prison time, and Wells suggested a way to ensure he spent time behind bars even without the Probation Department's say-so: A 42-day pre-sentencing "diagnostic testing" in a maximum-security prison.
>
>Polanski served that time, but between the time of his release and the date of his sentencing, the judge indicated to lawyers that he planned to sentence him to 48 additional days in prison, according to the papers.
>
>Wells said his discussions with the judge were in no way inappropriate and dismissed the allegations as irrelevant.
>
>"He asked us a legal question. I gave him a legal answer," he said in an interview with The Times. "It had nothing in particular to do with the Polanski case, it was a general conversation about what could be done about sentencing anybody."
>
>Wells, who was the prosecutor on the case during the investigation and for obtaining warrants, also said the photograph he showed the judge was in a German newspaper, and the judge would have seen it whether or not he brought it into court.
>
>"It's a guy that raped a 13-year-old girl and wants to get no prison time. If that's the case, [Polanski] should be in state prison for life. That's how I feel about it, but remember I was not the lawyer on the case," said Wells, who said he was taken off the case because he became too involved in the investigation and his office feared he might be called as a witness. "If I were the D.A. on the case, he would've been tried, and there would've been" none of these complications.
What Wells, who was interviewed for the documentary, said does not sound like a firm commitment or binding promise from the judge.
This article does not say that the judge ever committed a firm promise to the sentence "suggested" by Wells. Also Wells was removed from the case. Did Wells have an axe to grind with the judge? Wells was interviewed in the documentary. Was the prosecutor who took over the case interviewed?
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
>> {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > And I have said it before, and I will say it again--he changed his mind about accepting the deal. "Reneging" is your perspective.
>
> It isn't my perspective. It is what everyone connected to the case has said, as far as I can remember.
Usually only the prosecutor talks to the judge, so whatever the defense counsel has to say about the firmness of a plea deal is probably dependent on what the prosecutor said. So which prosecutor said the judge "reneged" on the deal? Wells, who was removed from the case? Or his successor? If his successor...did the successor say the judge reneged based on what his predecessor said? The predecessor who had secret conversations with the judge and nobody can really be sure what was said because the judge is no longer alive so we can hear his side of the story?
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> As for the documentary, I don't think there has been much criticism of bias, if any. The documentary makes the judge look very bad, but it doesn't exactly make Polanski look good, either. Besides, the maker of the documentary seems to have interviewed everyone connected to the case who isn't dead; she talked to the defense attorneys, she talked to the victim, she talked to the prosecutors. How many other sides are there in a criminal case? If all parties involved in the case (except for the judge, who is dead) get to tell their story, what bias is there, exactly?
A clever documentary creator who has an agenda always puts in some information for the side opposite his agenda, so that it makes the documentary appear less subjective. But there is always more information presented that is favorable to the creator's agenda--in this case, to make it look like Polanski was "railroaded". As you say, since the judge is dead, not ALL parties can participate. And since the judge is the one being maligned, because everyone else is basing everything off what one prosecutor said happened...a prosecutor who may have lied...a prosecutor who may have an axe to grind...the judge cannot defend himself against these attacks.
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> The people who spoke on CNN, it seems to me, were not directly connected to the case. And as I'd said earlier, everyone that was directly connected with the case has pretty much said the same thing. I can't think of any reason why the prosecutors and the defense attorneys would both offer the same account unless they were both substantially true, especially since they appear to have been interviewed separately.
The documentary does not present all sides of the story, and it in all likelihood does not present complete information because there was removal of one prosecutor, and one prosecutor has admitted to lying. And as I have said before, anything the defense and victim have to say about the so-called deal is based on what they learned from one of these prosecutors. Not sure which one--the one who lied? The one who was removed? The one who took over and had to base everything on what he heard from the first prosecutor?
No, there is too much controversy about this to simply accept what was said in the documentary as all fact simply because the people interviewed were all connected with the case.
-
> {quote:title=mvblair wrote:}{quote}
> *...we should hold those entrusted with enforcing the laws to a higher standard than we would a criminal..* -HGL
>
> Well...I've always find that line dubious.
I agree wholeheartedly. When HGL asked previously if they shouldn't be held to a higher standard, I said no, they should be held to the same standard. This often surprises people, because the standard line of response expected is "yes, higher standard." But if we don't hold criminals to the same standard as everyone else, then we are putting criminals above everyone else.
-
> {quote:title=Ellaisgood wrote:}{quote}
> Holly,
>
> After reading your statements (I must agree with the above statement that you have totally kept your cool) and Voranis....and all the others...I am glad I dropped out of law school after only 6 months.
>
> I must admit that reading the entire thread over...you all bring up well informed and valid points. I seriously recommend pursuing legal careers. I would hire you folks in a heart beat!
I was supposed to go to law school. My family wanted me to, my friends wanted me to, one teacher even wanted me to work with her husband who was an attorney for a day to get an idea of what the legal profession was like, and I had several other attorneys who were pushing me to go. Yet after being accepted to law schools, I decided it was not for me.
Debating this has been quite a strain on me, and my public speaking skills are poor, so I certainly could not have been a trial lawyer.
-
> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote}
> "If he is extradited, then yes, it stands to reason there would be a new hearing. *However, legally speaking*, I don't believe it is possible to "start the case from scratch". And it's almost certain that the victim isn't going to testify."
>
> As I have indicated in this reply of yours from this morning, and through out many of your comments sprinkled through out this thread, it would seem that you know quite a bit about the legal profession.
>
> Is this an accurate statement?
>
> Do you have some legal expertise? Or are you as perplexed about all of this as the rest of us are?
>
> Because if you are some sort of legal expert, why not just come out from behind the curtain and tell us what you really think.
HGL even went so far as to call the CNN legal analysts "so-called". At least they are attorneys. When I mentioned quotes from an attorney, HGL wanted to know the names and from what network--probably out of a belief that I could not produce any. When I found the network and the names, HGL then said they were "so-called" and not connected with the case. Well, none of the TV legal analysts are connected with the case, so then HGL didn't need to know the names and network, because HGL was already ready to summarily dismiss out of hand anyone not connected with the case. HGL believes only the attorneys who worked on the case can say anything factual...yet there are now indications that some of those attorneys may have lied.
Just because a person is "connected with the case" does not make everything they say automatic "fact." HGL continues to cite all kinds of things as fact and widespread knowledge that do not appear to be accurate.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > Notice the wording...the judge "very bad"...Polanski..."doesn't exactly look good". Again, always the harsher wording for the judge. Gentler, roundabout wording for the rapist. This is what I find so wrong and why I think an ideology exists that presents anything improper in the justice system as a heinous crime, while overlooking the actual more reprehensible actions of the criminal.
>
> Well, you may think the criminal's actions are the "more reprehensible," and I respect your opinion. To me, it seems silly to state the obvious (that a crime is a bad thing) while neglecting the fact that, imho, we should hold those entrusted with enforcing the laws to a higher standard than we would a criminal.
I was waiting for that...the "higher standard" line. I don't excuse any proper conduct...but no, I don't think we should hold the law enforcers to a higher standard. We should hold them to the same standard ... of upholding the law. This is the ideology of focusing entirely on the mistakes by law enforcers and little focus on the actions of the criminals. When intense scrutiny is applied to the legal system to find the tiniest mistake to let a rapist or murder get off free--that is a perversion of justice. I am not excusing improper behavior by people in the judicial system--like the outrageous behavior of the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case, he got the justice he deserved--they should be held accountable and punished if necessary. But when the dialogue is all about condemning law enforcement and there is no dialogue condemning the actions of the criminals--or when the dialogue about the actions of the criminals is "softened" with double negatives and gentler, roundabout language--this is indicative of misplaced priorities.
> > It's easy to make the judge look bad when he's no longer alive to defend himself. I am not certain all parties in the case got to tell their story. One legal analyst I saw on TV said there were multiple prosecutors involved and there is a discrepancy between the prosecutors' stories.
>
> I don't remember how many prosecutors there were, exactly, and how many defense attorneys. But, basically if you get one or more from each side, plus the victim, I'd say you're getting all the sides directly involved.
I disagree. It could happen like this...hypothetically...the prosecutor is a bad person. He goes for a lenient plea bargain because the defendant is a celebrity. The judge originally goes along with the deal but then finds out about the prosecutor's misconduct. The judge reverses the decision on the deal. The prosecutor is angered and calls the judge a bad judge. The defense is going to go along with this because, hey, it's in their client's best interest and might lead to their client getting off free. Someone does a documentary and interviews the prosecutor who says the judge was bad (which can't be trusted because the prosecutor himself is the one who is bad) and the defense says the judge is bad (because hey, it's in their client's best interest). The victim tells the same story in the documentary because that's what she's been told by the bad prosecutor and the defense. The entire story about the judge being corrupt is based on the story told by a bad prosecutor and a defense attorney who went along with it. The new appeals judge bases his finding of judicial misconduct on the statements of the original prosecutor and the defense, but this is all predicated on a pack of lies...
I'm not saying that's what happened here--this is a piece of fiction I just made up. I'm saying it could happen and all it would take would be one bad prosecutor and one defense attorney who "went along." The prosecutor doesn't even have to be all that "bad"--just someone who believes in lenient deals and is at philosophical odds with the judge and when asked his side of the story, his philosophical differences lead him to say the judge was bad. There's plenty of demonizing of folks based purely on philosophical differences going on right now, so it's not all that hard to believe.
So no, there is a possibility that one person from the prosecution side and one from the defense side does NOT tell the whole story. I would like to hear from another person who served in the prosecutor's office at the time, especially after hearing one legal analyst say that there was another prosecutor involved in that case who told a different story. I don't have any more details than that. Did the HBO documentary interview more than one person in the prosecutor's office?
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > I believe there is more to this story than what has been revealed in the HBO documentary, based on the number of legal analysts on TV I have seen disputing these allegations. I suspect the documentary has presented an incomplete picture by selectively picking only people who would give information favorable to the point of view they wanted to convey.
>
> I don't think these so-called "legal analysts" are necessarily going to be the best-informed people when it comes to the details of the case. I think those who know the most about the case are those who were directly involved in it.
>
> As for the documentary, I don't think there has been much criticism of bias, if any. The documentary makes the judge look very bad, but it doesn't exactly make Polanski look good, either. Besides, the maker of the documentary seems to have interviewed everyone connected to the case who isn't dead; she talked to the defense attorneys, she talked to the victim, she talked to the prosecutors. How many other sides are there in a criminal case? If all parties involved in the case (except for the judge, who is dead) get to tell their story, what bias is there, exactly?
Notice the wording...the judge "very bad"...Polanski..."doesn't exactly look good". Again, always the harsher wording for the judge. Gentler, roundabout wording for the rapist. This is what I find so wrong and why I think an ideology exists that presents anything improper in the justice system as a heinous crime, while overlooking the actual more reprehensible actions of the criminal.
It's easy to make the judge look bad when he's no longer alive to defend himself. I am not certain all parties in the case got to tell their story. One legal analyst I saw on TV said there were multiple prosecutors involved and there is a discrepancy between the prosecutors' stories.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > Well, I strongly disagree. That it is a matter of state interest is the law of the land and whether you agree with it or not is immaterial.
>
> Sorry, but I think you misunderstood. I don't disagree on the concept that crimes should be prosecuted, if that is how you interpreted that. I disagree that we are in a situation where a victim's refusal to testify would effectively hinder effective prosecution of such crimes. In that regard, the situation is quite a bit different than it was in 1978, and I would think you would be glad about that.
I never said we are in a situation where a victim's refusal to testify would hinder prosecution, so I don't know why you are disagreeing with something I never said. I'm saying that the state has an interest in prosecuting these crimes regardless of the victim's wishes...then and now.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > You've said in previous posts that no one was disputing it...not just that no one "connected with the case" was:
>
> I'm sorry if that was misunderstood. However, to clarify, I still don't know of anyone who had first-hand knowledge of the situation who hasn't basically said the same thing.
>
> People who have no first-hand knowledge about the case can of course say they don't believe it, but that's hardly the same thing.
I'm sorry you weren't more clear in your original statements. I believe there is more to this story than what has been revealed in the HBO documentary, based on the number of legal analysts on TV I have seen disputing these allegations. I suspect the documentary has presented an incomplete picture by selectively picking only people who would give information favorable to the point of view they wanted to convey.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > Defendants plead guilty all the time in deals with the prosecution prior to approval from a judge. You say you have come to the conclusion that Polanski would not have pled guilty without prior approval from the judge, but that is your conclusion, not fact.
>
> I don't know what defendants supposedly do "all the time". I know what happened in this case, from the information that is publicly available. And what I said about Polanski wasn't "my conclusion", it's actually based on the accounts of the people who were involved in the case, who have first-hand knowledge of what happened.
You said it was "your conclusion", right here:
>And the only conclusion I can come up with is that the judge had explicitly agreed to go along with that sentence, the sentence recommended by the prosecutors and the Chino prison officials, before Polanski actually pleaded guilty, and that Polanski wouldn't have pleaded guilty without the implicit understanding that the judge had agreed to do this.
>
> > I've said this before--this is a crime against the state as well. The state has an interest in prosecuting and obtaining punishment regardless of what the victim wants.
>
> Well, how many cases can the state hope to prosecute successfully if the victim is not going to testify?
>
> > Are you saying you would not want to see the rapist prosecuted? Are you saying you would not testify? I can understand a young girl not wanting to be constantly reminded about it and put through the emotional trauma of a trial.
> >
> > But...the reason the state has an interest in these cases is because if we don't prosecute the rapists because the victim doesn't want to be reminded about it or doesn't want to testify, we are giving the green-light to child rapists everywhere.
>
> I strongly disagree. Furthermore, changes in the laws means that the lack of testimony by the victim is much less crucial to a successful prosecution now than it was 30 years ago.
Well, I strongly disagree. That it is a matter of state interest is the law of the land and whether you agree with it or not is immaterial.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> The people who spoke on CNN, it seems to me, were not directly connected to the case. And as I'd said earlier, everyone that was directly connected with the case has pretty much said the same thing. I can't think of any reason why the prosecutors and the defense attorneys would both offer the same account unless they were both substantially true, especially since they appear to have been interviewed separately.
You've said in previous posts that no one was disputing it...not just that no one "connected with the case" was:
>The judge was more concerned with his image and with the publicity surrounding the case. That is a fact which nobody has disputed.
>It is an acknowledged fact that the judge engaged in "substantial misconduct," those are the words of the current judge.
It appears some are disputing it...
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > My understanding is the prosecutor and the defense strike the deal first and then the prosecutor take it to the judge. In other words, the plea bargain offered to the defense is not a done deal when the prosecution offers it--just very likely, because usually the judge will agree with the prosecution. I don't believe prosecutors get the approval of the judge before offering the deal.
>
> Maybe that is how it is in most cases. But, again, I have done my utmost to have an informed opinion, based on all information that is publicly available. And the only conclusion I can come up with is that the judge had explicitly agreed to go along with that sentence, the sentence recommended by the prosecutors and the Chino prison officials, before Polanski actually pleaded guilty, and that Polanski wouldn't have pleaded guilty without the implicit understanding that the judge had agreed to do this.
Defendants plead guilty all the time in deals with the prosecution prior to approval from a judge. You say you have come to the conclusion that Polanski would not have pled guilty without prior approval from the judge, but that is your conclusion, not fact.
If the judge rejects the deal, the guilty plea is withdrawn and the case goes to trial.
>
> > Now I'm interested in seeing it.
>
> I hope you get a chance to. I had not really formed an opinion about the Polanski case before I watched it, and what I saw and heard almost made my jaw drop. It seemed the kind of behavior you would usually associate with judges in banana republics, not in the United States of America.
I would be interested in seeing it to sift through what is really fact and what is supposition, as well as who looks credible and who does not.
>
> > I don't consider it condescending. I'm glad to hear you say it. I'm glad you said it once (maybe you already did and I missed the post), but of course you don't need to say it with every post. You'd be surprised at the number of people out there who don't think of those actions as wrong. It seems like Polanski's actions are getting overlooked in the stampede by Hollywood to blame everything on the justice system and try to say Polanski has "suffered enough" and he shouldn't even have a new hearing or trial.
>
> Look, I would never advocate that a crime should go unpunished. But what happened here, it seems to me, is particularly outrageous and probably very hurtful for the victim, because I honestly believe she has also suffered a lot from having to constantly be reminded about it for the last 30 years.
>
> If I had been raped as a teenager, I don't think I would want to be constantly reminded about it with stories in the news media. I'd probably like to forget about it as much as it was possible, to put it out of my mind and just get on with my life.
I've said this before--this is a crime against the state as well. The state has an interest in prosecuting and obtaining punishment regardless of what the victim wants.
Are you saying you would not want to see the rapist prosecuted? Are you saying you would not testify? I can understand a young girl not wanting to be constantly reminded about it and put through the emotional trauma of a trial.
But...the reason the state has an interest in these cases is because if we don't prosecute the rapists because the victim doesn't want to be reminded about it or doesn't want to testify, we are giving the green-light to child rapists everywhere.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> It makes a difference to me. You don't know their names or affiliations, if any. I'd like to get as much information as I can about the case, so if you tell me the channel, perhaps I can watch that as well.
>
> > And I have said it before, and I will say it again--he changed his mind about accepting the deal. "Reneging" is your perspective.
>
> It isn't my perspective. It is what everyone connected to the case has said, as far as I can remember.
OK, on the September 28 edition of Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN, legal analysts Lisa Bloom and Jeffrey Toobin both said that the misconduct of the judge was never proven, and that the allegations that he was going to impose a more severe sentence were never even proven. They claim these allegations are "defense spin."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/28/acd.01.html
You've said over and over in previous posts that no one is disputing the judicial misconduct--that it was fact. But apparently, some ARE disputing it. As the Romulan commander said in the Star Trek episode "The Enterprise Incident"...it appears there is another side to this story after all...
5 or 6 Road movies tonight?
in General Discussions
Posted
Both My Favorite Brunette and Road to Bali are available together on DVD at:
http://turnerclassic.moviesunlimited.com
Bob Hope & Bing Crosby Collector's Edition
In addition to "My Favorite Brunette," "Road to Bali" and "Road to Hollywood," this two-disc set also includes "Going Spanish" (1934), a hilarious short that finds Bob Hope, his fiancee, and future mother-in-law getting themselves out of--and back into--trouble while singing at a South American festival; "Hollywood Victory Caravan" (1945), a short produced to entertain the troops during World War II featuring Bob and Bing, along with Humphrey Bogart, Barbara Stanwyck, Alan Ladd, Robert Benchley, and more; and newsreel footage from the Hollywood Canteen. 4 2/3 hrs. total. Standard; Soundtrack: English Dolby Digital 5.1; biography; photo gallery; trivia; more.
SKU: D68405
And it's on sale right now for $9.99. You can get to the product page by clicking on the video icon next to the movie title in the TCM online schedule.
Is this the public domain version? Rats, if I had known it was only available public domain, I would have recorded it on TCM. The little icon in the TCM schedule that indicates it's available on video took me to the DVD listed on turnerclassic.moviesunlimited.com. I always check the link to be sure it's available on DVD and not just VHS. But I didn't realize this was a public domain DVD--these are sometimes worse quality than what TCM shows.