voranis
-
Posts
590 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by voranis
-
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > The judge changed his mind. I haven't heard any legally authoritative source say that the judge could not change his mind about the deal. If that is misconduct, then a new hearing and/or trial should be held.
>
> It's about the judge reneging on a deal to which he had agreed to, it's not about changing his mind. Those are two very different things.
He changed his mind about the deal.
>
> > Regardless, the deal was not ultimately accepted, so Polanski has not served an official sentence, either because the judge legally changed his mind about the deal and rejected it, or because as you say the judge was engaged in misconduct. Either way, Polanski never served an official sentence. Actually, he has not even been found guilty because the plea was not accepted and no trial was held.
>
> When a person has pleaded guilty, no trial is held. Had he pleaded innocent, then the next step would have been to go to trial. What is the purpose of a trial, if not to determine if a person is guilty or innocent? And if he already pleaded guilty to something, then there's no reason to go to trial. And part of the agreement under which he agreed to plead guilty was that essentially, he wouldn't have to serve time, aside from the time at Chino State Prison. The prosecutors didn't think he needed to serve time, and the victim's family also didn't think he needed to serve time. So, the sentence that the prosecutors were seeking was essentially parole. Or, to be more precise, time already served plus parole.
But the plea bargain was ultimately rejected by the judge.
>
> > By fleeing before an official trial or sentence was performed, Polanski committed another crime, regardless of whether the fact that there was no sentence was due to misconduct or to a judge legally rejecting the deal.
> >
> > The statute of limitations on this case has not expired and a new hearing and/or trial should be held.
>
> Well, first there are several appeals that are pending. Second, it is uncertain that the U.S. will obtain Polanski's extradition.
>
> However, if he is extradited, there are several reasons why he might not serve any time. His defense could be successful in getting the charges dismissed, or he might receive a pardon from the Governor (I believe many in the Hollywood community are lobbying for such a pardon or plan to do so in case the extradition moved forward).
>
> And what happens if none of those efforts are successful? Well, apparently, according to those a California corrections official interviewed by the L.A. Times, he might serve a maximum of 16 months behind bars, and prosecutors have not said whether they would charge him with his flight from the court:
>
> *If the defense strategies fail or if Polanski -- who almost certainly would be denied bail in Los Angeles -- opts for a quick resolution, the case would proceed to sentencing. He faces a maximum of 16 months behind bars, an official with the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said Wednesday.*
>
> *Prosecutors declined to say whether they would seek to charge Polanski in connection with his flight from the court.*
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski-legal1-2009oct01,0,1100452.story?page=2
>
> > {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > I would consider an attorney's opinion about the law more reliable than a newpaper reporter's. I don't have the name. I have heard several attorneys on TV state this as well, and their names were identified although I don't remember them.
>
> Newspaper reporters are not paid to nor expected to give opinions about the law. In fact, they're not supposed to give opinions, period. That's for op-ed writers. Reporters can report on the facts, they can interview the sources most likely to know what's happening, etc. But no reliable news outlet would expect a reporter to give a legal opinion.
>
> As for the attorneys on TV... where exactly where they speaking? Was it CNN? A local channel?
Does it make a difference? Does the channel on which the attorney is speaking have a bearing on whether the attorney knows the law?
>
> > Do you have any authoritative information that the judge can't change their mind about the deal? That is the point of your criticism, yet the legal analysts I have seen say it's legal for the judge to change their mind about rejecting the deal.
>
> I have said it before and will say it again. It's not about him changing his mind. It's about reneging on his word. It is a very different thing.
And I have said it before, and I will say it again--he changed his mind about accepting the deal. "Reneging" is your perspective.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > And my understanding is the judge is free to change his mind.
>
> Changing one's mind and reneging on a promise are two very different things.
From what I have heard reported, I don't believe the promise is legally binding on the judge.
>
> > And my understanding is the judge is free to change his mind.
>
> Ditto.
Ditto.
>
> > You state as fact what has not been proven. No charges were ever filed against the original judge, he was not put on trial, so he has not been proven guilty of anything. It is the
> > current judge's opinion that there was misconduct. It is not an "acknowledged fact."
> >
>
> Have you actually seen the HBO documentary? Everybody interviewed in connection with the case gave pretty much the same account about the judge's misconduct. If it had been just one person, well, some would argue that perhaps it was just somebody who had a grudge against him or what not. But pretty much everyone said the same thing. And both the defense and the prosecution filed motions to remove the judge from the case.
Clearly, I haven't seen the documentary. How many people said there was substantial misconduct on the judge's part? What was the misconduct?
As I've said before, I find a certain ideology strange that shows so much scorn and condemnation for the prosecution and incarceration of criminals, but doesn't have any condemnation of the criminals' actions. You are so critical of the judge "reneging on a promise," which is not a crime, but not a word of condemnation for the rape of a 13-year old girl and flight from justice, both of which are very serious crimes.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > I found this online from an attorney:
>
> What is the name of the attorney? What's his/her area of expertise? What's his/her connection with the Polanski case, if any?
>
> I could come up with quotes and say they're from some unidentified attorney... if the source is not even identified, you can't really expect anyone to gauge its reliability.
I would consider an attorney's opinion about the law more reliable than a newpaper reporter's. I don't have the name. I have heard several attorneys on TV state this as well, and their names were identified although I don't remember them.
Do you have any authoritative information that the judge can't change their mind about the deal? That is the point of your criticism, yet the legal analysts I have seen say it's legal for the judge to change their mind about rejecting the deal.
>
> > You see, you state the judge being swayed by public opinion and politics as if it were fact, but that has not been proven, and there seems to be an equally powerful argument that the judge changed his mind to correct a mistake.
>
> I think it may be one of the few things in the case that hasn't really been disputed. And the judge did change his mind, but after having given his word that he would agree to go along with the sentence sought by the prosecution. Furthermore, it is my understanding that Chino prison officials advised the judge that testing indicated his sentence should not include additional time. We know that the judge reneged on his word, that he disregarded the advise of the Chino prison officials, and we also know he kept a book full of newspaper clippings with articles showing all of the cases in which he'd presided over that involved celebrities. I don't see anyone defending the impartiality of the judge.
>
> > Interesting...all the stories that support the detention of Polanski are all considered "simplistic" and "one-note" by you...
>
> See, that comment right there shows that you aren't even paying attention to what I say - or else playing very selective attention. My comment that included the terms "simplistic" and "one-note" had absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Polanski case. Nothing at all. It was in reference to the film The Soloist. And that movie has absolutely nothing to do with Polanski. Nothing at all. It has to do with Lopez playing a homeless but gifted African-American and trying to help him get off the streets.
>
> > However, if there was misconduct...then all the more reason to have a new hearing with a new judge and start the case from scratch...not wipe the slate clean.
>
> 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.
>
> > And I don't believe the short time served at Chino would be considered appropriate in any time period for a crime of this magnitude...not then...not now. It's strange that the prosecutor would accept such a lenient plea bargain. Perhaps the prosecutor was the one who was corrupt--influenced by Polanski's celebrity, for example. For all we know, the misconduct might have been in the prosecutor's office, not the judge's. This case should go forward again just to get to the bottom of everything and see that justice is served this time around.
>
> Believe it or not, laws were different in California at the time. And nobody has ever questioned the integrity of the prosecutor. Absolutely nobody, as far as I know.
I've seen it questioned on TV by several legal analysts.
-
Just to summarize...
The judge changed his mind. I haven't heard any legally authoritative source say that the judge could not change his mind about the deal. If that is misconduct, then a new hearing and/or trial should be held.
Regardless, the deal was not ultimately accepted, so Polanski has not served an official sentence, either because the judge legally changed his mind about the deal and rejected it, or because as you say the judge was engaged in misconduct. Either way, Polanski never served an official sentence. Actually, he has not even been found guilty because the plea was not accepted and no trial was held.
By fleeing before an official trial or sentence was performed, Polanski committed another crime, regardless of whether the fact that there was no sentence was due to misconduct or to a judge legally rejecting the deal.
The statute of limitations on this case has not expired and a new hearing and/or trial should be held.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > My understanding is that the prosecutor's recommendation is NOT binding on the judge:
> >
>
> It was not a recommendation. My understanding is that it was an agreement between all the parties, including the judge.
And my understanding is the judge is free to change his mind.
>
> > However, the recommendation is just that, a recommendation. I could recommend that you jump off a high building -- but you do not have to take that recommendation, even if you at some point indicated that you might do so. The judge always has the power and indeed the obligation to reject a sentencing recommendation that he/she regards as unduly lenient."
>
> As I said before, to the best of my knowledge it was not a recommendation. The judge had given his word that he would go along with the sentence they had all agreed upon.
>
> > I think the real problem is that you don't seem to be willing to accept the fact that what the prosecutors recommend is not binding and is not a final determination of justice.
>
> Once again, to the best of my knowledge it was not a recommendation. It was something the judge gave his word he would follow.
And my understanding is the judge is free to change his mind.
>
> > Where is the evidence for this? You seem to be reading the judge's mind and drawing unsubstantiated conclusions because you are in the tank for Polanski.
>
> I am not "in the tank" for anybody. That you would actually misunderstand what I have been trying to explain in such a spectacular manner is astonishing. And there is plenty of evidence about the judge's misconduct, even the current judge handling Polanski's appeal has publicly acknowledged "substantial misconduct". If you're not well informed about the case, then please don't make it seem that other people aren't either.
>
> > Again, you do not seem to understand that it is legal for the judge to reject the deal.
>
> Again, the judge had given his word he would honor the agreement with the prosecution.
And my understanding is the judge is free to change his mind.
>
> > That's speculative about whether the victim would testify. The judge disagreed, and has the right--and indeed the obligation--to do so if he feels the case should go to trial.
>
> No, it is not speculative. It is the information about the case that the prosecutors had.
"a good chance" == speculative
>
> > And there are plenty of stories out there to support the other side as well. I don't think the prosecutor's rationale of wanting to avoid a "Hollywood Babylon" is a reason to support such a lenient plea bargain. This is just further proof that the prosecutor was wrong and the judge was right.
>
> It is an acknowledged fact that the judge engaged in "substantial misconduct," those are the words of the current judge. Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has said the same thing about the prosecutors at the time.
You state as fact what has not been proven. No charges were ever filed against the original judge, he was not put on trial, so he has not been proven guilty of anything. It is the
current judge's opinion that there was misconduct. It is not an "acknowledged fact."
And even if there was misconduct...it doesn't change the fact that the judge ultimately rejected the deal. So there has been no final conviction or sentence. All that means is that a new hearing or trial should be held. Clinging to the thread that the judge had originally agreed to the deal does not mean that there was a final conviction or sentence. Polanski has never served an official sentence.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > Not exactly hearing any condemnation of what he did from those who oppose what is happening now, are we?
>
> I think there are very valid reasons for questioning the timing of the arrest, the fact that it suggests political motivations, and simply pointing that out doesn't mean (at least as far as I can see) what Polanski did is not wrong. I don't recall anyone specifically saying that what he did wasn't wrong.
I haven't heard anyone who opposes his detention say what he did was wrong. All I've heard is the double negative that "no one is saying what he did wasn't wrong", which isn't the same thing at all. In fact, the wording of the double negative suggests that those opposing his detention are going to great lengths to avoid saying what he did was terrible.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}
> > Yes. See U.S. vs. Bank Of America just a few weeks ago. The "small" fine agreed to by the U.S. Justice Dept. to be paid by BofA for "hiding" the full facts on bonuses involved with the Merrill Lynch "merger" was rejected by the judge. The judge told both sides to begin preparing for trial.
>
> That's comparing apples and oranges. You say that in that case, it was the Justice Dept. that agreed to that fine. (I take your word for it, although I'm not very familiar with the details of the case). The difference is that in the Polanski case, the judge had agreed with the prosecution and the victim's family as to the sentence.
I found this online from an attorney:
"And no agreement between the prosecutor and the accused can tie the judge?s hands. To me, it sounds like the judge compromised himself and then regretted it and changed his mind, which was his prerogative. Maybe there was some crazy stuff going on in that L.A. court, but Polanski can?t rely on it now."
You see, you state the judge being swayed by public opinion and politics as if it were fact, but that has not been proven, and there seems to be an equally powerful argument that the judge changed his mind to correct a mistake.
> Testimony is just that: testimony. It is not the same as fact. If someone commits perjury but the perjury is not immediately known, then you have a situation where testimony is falsehood masquerading as fact. I'm not saying that is the case in the Polanski case, I'm just (again) playing devil's advocate.
Wow...I consider trial testimony a lot more likely (but not not guaranteed) to be true than what is presented in a documentary in which the documentarian may have an agenda.
>
> By the same token, a documentary is usually just factual information, except of course, when a person knowingly and intentionally lies and/or gives false information.
Again, I find this an incredible statement..."a documentary is usually just factual information". Incredibly naive...and wrong.
>
> The court testimony by itself does not present the full picture of what happened, because obviously it doesn't document the judge's substantial misconduct. And the term "substantial misconduct" is the one that was used by the new judge handling the Polanski appeals.
>
> > For what it is worth, this was on the front page of the L.A. Times Wednesday morning. And Steve Lopez (the person who wrote the column that included the testimony) is also the writer of the L.A. Times series that became the basis of the film The Soloist with Jamie Foxx and Robert Downey Jr. He isn't Nancy Grace.
>
> I saw the movie, and while it speaks highly of him, it was dramatically a very simplistic, one-note story. And I suspect that you will be seeing more Polanski-related stories and op-eds on the front page of your hometown paper, which is just a reflection of the media frenzy once again surrounding the case.
Interesting...all the stories that support the detention of Polanski are all considered "simplistic" and "one-note" by you...but any story that would suggest his detention as inappropriate, such as the one you cited earlier that said "the victim probably wouldn't have testified," you state as "fact." Now there's an objective approach--cherry-picking stories to support your position.
Interesting...you accept the new judge's opinion of "substantial misconduct"...he couldn't be wrong...while automatically accepting allegations that the original judge was corrupt. It seems at every step you accept anything that helps Polanski avoid a trial or lengthier sentence, and you reject everything that would support him being tried.
However, if there was misconduct...then all the more reason to have a new hearing with a new judge and start the case from scratch...not wipe the slate clean.
And I don't believe the short time served at Chino would be considered appropriate in any time period for a crime of this magnitude...not then...not now. It's strange that the prosecutor would accept such a lenient plea bargain. Perhaps the prosecutor was the one who was corrupt--influenced by Polanski's celebrity, for example. For all we know, the misconduct might have been in the prosecutor's office, not the judge's. This case should go forward again just to get to the bottom of everything and see that justice is served this time around.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=dianabat wrote:}{quote}
> > I find it incredible that an admitted child rapist/sodomizer could engender such seemingly heartfelt sympathy from some, especially in light of the crime he committed. It certainly speaks volumes on the power of Hollywood.
> >
> > Di
>
> dianabat,
> I would wonder if whatever sympathy Polanski engenders isn't in spite of what he did, and mostly the result of his experiences with the Nazis, the Manson followers, etc. I don't think even the worst of his critics could claim he's led a charmed life.
Not exactly hearing any condemnation of what he did from those who oppose what is happening now, are we?
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > I said "botched" because there is some confusion about the deal. I have heard the judge reneging on the deal also reported as the judge rejecting the deal. My understanding is the judge can reject the deal struck between the prosecutor and the defendant, and then the case goes to trial. Is that not correct?
>
> In this case, it is not correct. There were important reasons why they did not want the case to go to trial. In any event, I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the prosecutors and the victim's family had agreed to a specific sentence, and that Polanski had accepted the sentence that was contemplated as part of the plea bargain agreement in which he pleaded guilty. Had he not wanted that plea bargain agreement, Polanski could have decided he was better off taking his chances with a jury trial.
You haven't provided any evidence that it is not correct. My understanding is that the prosecutor's recommendation is NOT binding on the judge:
"You really do not understand the nature of plea bargains. A plea bargain is a deal between the prosecutor and the defendant that if the defendant pleads guilty (and he has to allocute (i.e., describe what he did under oath)) the prosecutor will make a certain sentencing recommendation. That arrangement does not bind the judge at all, in any way. In practice judges go along with the deal because it saves the cost of a trial (which is big) and it means that the victim (especially in a rape) does not have to testify and be cross-examined.
However, the recommendation is just that, a recommendation. I could recommend that you jump off a high building -- but you do not have to take that recommendation, even if you at some point indicated that you might do so. The judge always has the power and indeed the obligation to reject a sentencing recommendation that he/she regards as unduly lenient."
>
> > But the trial couldn't happen because Polanski fled, which is another crime. Polanski did not serve a sentence handed down by a judge or jury. Serving the "time contemplated in the sentence sought by the prosecutors" is not the same as serving the time sentenced by a judge or jury and there sure is a lot of wordsmithing there by you, HollywoodGolightly, to make it sound like Polanski did serve a full sentence...but when you get past all the word parsing...in actuality, he did not receive final justice from a court of law.
>
> I think the real problem is that you don't seem to be willing to accept the fact that the prosecutors were content to get a sentence of time already served at Chino, plus parole. You might not think it was the right sentence, but by all reports, the prosecutors did, and that is why the deal was made in the first place.
I think the real problem is that you don't seem to be willing to accept the fact that what the prosecutors recommend is not binding and is not a final determination of justice.
>
> > If the judge reconsidered and decided the deal was too light, good for him. I haven't heard that the judge did anything illegal. I agree with lzcutter that the time served in Chino is not sufficient for a crime of this magnitude.
>
> The judge was more concerned with his image and with the publicity surrounding the case. That is a fact which nobody has disputed. As for the sentence being sufficient or not, from which point of view? We may not think that the sentence was sufficiently harsh by today's standards, but that is in part because the laws today are not the same as they were in the 70s, and the tools available to prosecutors today are not the same as were available to them in the 70s.
Where is the evidence for this? You seem to be reading the judge's mind and drawing unsubstantiated conclusions because you are in the tank for Polanski.
>
> > And justice is determined by a judge or jury in a court of law, not by the wishes of the prosecutor, victim, victim's family, newspapers, Academy of Motion Pictures, public opinion, etc. Citing all that stuff doesn't change the fact that a crime was committed for which an official court sentence was not served.
>
> Then you may not understand the concept of a plea bargain agreement. This is essentially something that is useful in many cases to secure a conviction which the prosecution believes might otherwise be far from certain.
Again, you do not seem to understand that it is legal for the judge to reject the deal.
> In the Polanski case, part of the prosecutors' reasoning was that the victim did not want to testify during a trial. Without her testimony at the trial, there would have been a good chance that Polanski could have gone to trial and been found _not guilty_ on all counts.
That's speculative about whether the victim would testify. The judge disagreed, and has the right--and indeed the obligation--to do so if he feels the case should go to trial.
>
> Here is an excerpt from a recent story:
>
> District Attorney John Van de Kamp said at the time that he struck the unusual plea bargain with Polanski because he wanted to spare the 13-year-old girl from testifying during a trial that "could victimize her a second time."
>
> "We chose to side with her," Van de Kamp said after the August 1977 hearing where Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse. The deal would "provide the victim with the opportunity to grow up in a world where she'll not be known as the young girl with whom Roman Polanski had sexual intercourse."
>
> Prosecutors also asked the judge to accept the plea to avoid "another 'Hollywood Babylon' trial."
>
> And, it is also very true that if such a case took place today, prosecutors would have a lot of other tools at their disposal, besides the victim's testimony:
>
> But those wishes might be carry less weight if the case was brought today because advances in forensic science could provide DNA and other evidence that could be used in lieu of testimony. At the time, a police lab technician told a grand jury that chemical testing indicated the presence of seminal fluid on the girl's underwear.
>
> "If they had that kind of DNA evidence, it gives the prosecution a real, real case today," said Goldman, the law professor.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_en_mo/us_roman_polanski_today_s_climate
And there are plenty of stories out there to support the other side as well. I don't think the prosecutor's rationale of wanting to avoid a "Hollywood Babylon" is a reason to support such a lenient plea bargain. This is just further proof that the prosecutor was wrong and the judge was right.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> And Polanski didn't flee to avoid doing the time for his crime. We know what the agreed-upon sentence was going to be. Some may not agree that it was the sentence that he deserved, but it remains a fact that all sides in the case had agreed to it.
The judge ultimately rejected the terms of the deal, which meant the case would have gone to trial. Polanski fled to avoid doing the time that would have been required by sentencing in the trial. He still fled to avoid trial, which is a second crime.
-
> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}
> *Serving the "time contemplated in the sentence sought by the prosecutors" is not the same as serving the time sentenced by a judge or jury and there sure is a lot of wordsmithing there by you, HollywoodGolightly, to make it sound like Polanski did serve a full sentence...but when you get past all the word parsing...in actuality, he did not.*
>
> As Kyle noted, it was not 42 days served for the crime but 42 days served for psychiatric observation and testing.
>
> Polanski fled before the court ruled on his sentencing.
>
> He broke the law when he committed the crime and he broke the law by fleeing the country.
>
> And no amount of arguing can deny those two facts.
>
> Should he be brought back to face the court now, over 30 years later?
>
> You bet and no amount of "wordsmithing" (or petitions or hand wringing) will convince me otherwise.
>
> Jean Luc Besson is right, "there is a justice, it is the same for everyone."
Well said. He hasn't served any time for his second crime of fleeing the country.
And I said previously that justice is determined by a judge or jury, I know someone is going to bring up the subject of plea bargains. It should be fairly obvious from what I've already said that I am not a fan of plea bargains, especially for heinous crimes, but even so, I believe from what has been reported that a judge has to agree to the plea bargain, and in this case the judge either did not agree or changed his mind. Some have said the judge reneged or was influenced by public opinion--is this fact, or just a biased perception by those who are in Polanski's camp? Could it be the judge simply decided on his own that the sentence being sought by the prosecutor was not sufficient for a crime of this magnitude? I certainly don't think the time served in Chino was sufficient. I haven't heard it reported that the judge did anything illegal...
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> voranis,
> I already addressed some of this on the other thread. Polanski did serve the time at Chino State Prison that was contemplated in the sentence sought by the prosecutors on the case.
>
> And when you refer to a "botched deal", I can only assume you're referring to the fact that the judge in the case reneged on his word.
I said "botched" because there is some confusion about the deal. I have heard the judge reneging on the deal also reported as the judge rejecting the deal. My understanding is the judge can reject the deal struck between the prosecutor and the defendant, and then the case goes to trial. Is that not correct?
But the trial couldn't happen because Polanski fled, which is another crime. Polanski did not serve a sentence handed down by a judge or jury. Serving the "time contemplated in the sentence sought by the prosecutors" is not the same as serving the time sentenced by a judge or jury and there sure is a lot of wordsmithing there by you, HollywoodGolightly, to make it sound like Polanski did serve a full sentence...but when you get past all the word parsing...in actuality, he did not receive final justice from a court of law.
If the judge reconsidered and decided the deal was too light, good for him. I haven't heard that the judge did anything illegal. I agree with lzcutter that the time served in Chino is not sufficient for a crime of this magnitude.
And justice is determined by a judge or jury in a court of law, not by the wishes of the prosecutor, victim, victim's family, newspapers, Academy of Motion Pictures, public opinion, etc. Citing all that stuff doesn't change the fact that a crime was committed for which an official court sentence was not served.
-
> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}
> *To be frank, I think Polanski's been screwed over in this ordeal.*
>
> If he was a Catholic priest would we be having the same discussion?
>
> No, I thought not.
>
> Yes, he has had a tragic life. But when did having a tragic life make it okay to rape and **** a 13 year old?
>
> When did having a tragic life make it okay to flee the country and become a fugitive?
>
> He is not Richard Kimble. And any analogies to him are false.
>
> If it is okay for Roman Polanski to do these things then it is okay for anyone to do these things.
>
> Are you really willing to go there to defend him?
I agree, lzcutter. The man committed a crime and has not paid for it. And if the statute of limitations has not run out, he should be sentenced. It doesn't matter that the victim now says she doesn't want this pursued--the state has an interest in seeing that crimes of this type are punished, regardless of whether the victim has moved on with their life. Whether a civil settlement was reached has nothing to do with the criminal case.
As for previously stated ideas that he has "suffered enough"--malarkey. He hasn't suffered at all--living large overseas, basking in awards from sympathetic industry peers. I find it strange that there is a certain ideology that shows so much sympathy for people who commit heinous crimes, like Polanski and the Manson killers, and so little sympathy for their victims...
Whether there was a "botched deal" originally doesn't change the fact that the man has not served a sentence for his crime. Two crimes now, actually, since fleeing was also a crime. Polanski brought this on himself, from what I have heard, because he was brazen enough to recently try to appeal to have all this dropped so he could come back to the U.S. (indicating a kind of arrogance which is typical of people who think they should be allowed to get away with crimes). This angered the L.A. prosecutor department and they decided to finally get him.
There also seems to be a mentality among some fans of the arts that if you are a great artist (and I do believe Polanski is a great director) then you should be excused of any crimes you commit. This is a position with which I do not agree--no one, even a "high-and-mighty artsy type"--is above the law. A crime was committed and the sentence has not been served.
-
> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}
> If he was a Catholic priest would we be having the same discussion?
>
> No, I thought not.
>
> Yes, he has had a tragic life. But when did having a tragic life make it okay to rape and **** a 13 year old?
>
> When did having a tragic life make it okay to flee the country and become a fugitive?
>
> He is not Richard Kimble. And any analogies to him are false.
>
> If it is okay for Roman Polanski to do these things then it is okay for anyone to do these things.
>
> Are you really willing to go there to defend him?
I agree, lzcutter. The man committed a crime and has not paid for it. And if the statute of limitations has not run out, he should be sentenced. It doesn't matter that the victim now says she doesn't want this pursued--the state has an interest in seeing that crimes of this type are punished, regardless of whether the victim has moved on with their life.
As for previously stated ideas that he has "suffered enough"--malarkey. He hasn't suffered at all--living large overseas, basking in awards from sympathetic industry peers. I find it strange that there is a certain ideology that shows so much sympathy for people who commit heinous crimes, like Polanski and the Manson killers, and so little sympathy for their victims...
-
> {quote:title=kennethlawson wrote:}{quote}
> Dose anyone have any idea of the number of folks who went to to see the Wizard, on Wednesday,?
> It would be interesting to at least get a idea of the turnout that they had, I know my local theater seems to be packed pretty good..
I know both of the theaters in my area sold out way early. I was very despondent about not being able to get to see it--and still am, actually, since it's my favorite film of all time, and my friend who was planning to see it with me before we learned the tickets were all gone pointed out that if it was a sell-out, maybe they will do it again. Yet it seemed the sell-out in our area was not the norm--I checked various cities around the country and most still had tickets available the day before the showing. It would be interesting to hear how big the turnout for it was nation-wide, and what percentage of the theaters were occupied.
-
> {quote:title=okbuprofo7 wrote:}{quote}
> I agree, what does this have to do with classic films?
I thought maybe the discussion of screen size was relevant to classic films because there has been recent discussion about how much better the recent re-release of The Wizard of Oz looked in real theaters rather than on TV screens. I for one know the first time I saw Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz in a real theater, it was as if I was seeing each of those films for the first time, even though I have seen them many times on TV. I know the comparison I am making is between TV and a theater, but the IMAX discussion is still about different sizes of theater screens. I have seen both of these movies in an old historic theater with a huge screen, and I have seen them in a multiplex theater where the screen was smaller, and they definitely looked more impressive on the larger historic theater screen. I would never have thought it could make such as difference, until I actually experienced it.
I once read that certain movies play almost as well on TV as on the big screen, such as romantic comedies, but certain movies were designed for the big screen and lose a lot in the translation to TV. I believe I read that Orson Welles relied upon lots of shock cuts and big sound in Citizen Kane that always plays better on the larger screen. I think the discussion of screen sizes might be relevant to the TCM forums because many classic films were made and released when all there was was the large screen that is not as common in the multiplex theaters, and some fans of classic film may be interested in trying to see them in a venue as close to the original as possible...
-
TCM seems to show her movies so often, I didn't think they needed to make her a Star of the Month. It seems like they are always showing Leslie Caron and Gene Kelly movies. I actually think of Leslie Caron and Gene Kelly as the female and male "Star of the TCM Network".
Of course, they are both wonderful and very talented actors, and I don't mind the frequent showings of their movies--I just wonder if they get shown more often because they are favorites of Robert Osborne...
-
> {quote:title=JoeBond wrote:}{quote}
> In response to *voranis*: I believe that Robert Osborne said how it was the premiere of the new HD remaster and said how this movie has not aged a bit but that was about it.
Thanks, Joe! Sounds like he didn't say much; I was expecting more for such a historic occasion. You're so right about seeing classics on the big screen; when I finally saw The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind on the big screen, it was like I had never really seen these movies before...
They can't have a second showing at 10pm here because they are too busy rolling up the sidewalks at 10pm, even though this is supposed to be a metropolitan area. I swear, I have seen places stay open later in Mayberry on The Andy Griffith Show than they do here.
Maybe they will do this again for the 75th anniversary and I will be living somewhere with a better chance of seeing it...
-
I hope everyone who saw it tonight will give us a report. I would especially like to hear what Robert Osborne had to say before the film, especially since that won't be on the DVD release.
It didn't occur to me that the theaters might sell out until yesterday, and when I checked, both local theaters showing the movie had already sold out. Yet every theater I checked in cities all around the rest of my state and the U.S., tickets were still available. Looks like our area was one of the few to sell out--too many families living here, I guess, they all flocked here when our area was ranked one of the best places to raise kids. If I lived just about anywhere else, I could've gotten a ticket yesterday. Really depressed about this. :-(
I did see the re-release a few years back and actually got to travel to see it in 35mm at the Byrd Theatre in Richmond, VA. I was told it was a very old projector and that as a result we were seeing it in superior form--I can't remember if it was because the projector was one of the few old 35mm projectors still in use, or because it was true Technicolor and not Eastman. I do remember the previews looked funny because they were letterboxed inside the square the movie was shown in. I was told this was because there wasn't time to change projectors between the previews and the movie, so the previews had to be shown that way. I wonder how what I saw then would compare with what's being shown today.
Robbie
-
> {quote:title=WillyBilly wrote:}{quote}
> I would like to see Robert Osborne movie narratives posted on the web site. I am an old time movie collector and really llove to hear what Robert Osborne has to say about the movies. I would download these and keep them in a file so I could have an excellent description of the movie.
>
> Is there any chance for this?
>
> Is thee a way to get these?
>
> How many other people would like this?
I'd like to see it!
Robbie
-
> {quote:title=markbeckuaf wrote:}{quote}
> Pretty decent screwball comedy with GREAT cast (most films of the era had great casts, there were so many awesome character and supporting actors/actresses back in the day)! I'd recommend catching whenever TCM airs it again. I know they aired it a couple summers ago, maybe more recently.
Good to hear! It looked like it might be a good movie based on the cast. But then I checked the TCM database to see if there were any user reviews, and there weren't any, which had me wondering if maybe it wasn't such a great film after all. Sounds like my original impression based on the cast was correct--I hope I can catch it one day!
Robbie
-
I missed this movie today; wish I'd set my recorder for this movie instead of Funny Girl last night. Did anyone see this movie, and what did you think of it? I would like to have heard Mr. Mankiewicz's commentary about it. A neat set of four Errol Flynn/Olivia de Havilland films this afternoon.
Anyway, Four's a Crowd also has Rosalind Russell and Margaret Hamilton in it, which makes it sound very interesting to me. Did anyone see the movie and have any thoughts about it?
Robbie
-
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone remembers what Mr. Osborne had to say in his opening commentary about this film. I missed it tonight.
I have been wanting to see his commentary on The Champ for a long time, but usually TCM airs the movie very late at night or in the early morning when no commentary is done. Even when it aired on Saturday, April 25, of this year as part of an Oscar Ties theme, and it was the fourth movie in the primetime lineup that night, airing from 3-4:30a.m., he didn't do any commentary for it, even though I understand he normally does commentary for the first four films in the primetime lineup and I often see him doing commentary for films airing up to 4am on Saturday nights.
Robbie
-
> {quote:title=deadendkid wrote:}{quote}
> TCM, thanks very much for the upcoming Philo Vance movies. Please consider other series you have access to that haven't shown before. Again, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
I sure did enjoy the Philo Vance and Jungle Jim movies. TCM aired many of these Philo Vance movies, including The Dragon Murder Case, a couple of years ago (I think it was in 2007), and they aired a few of them last year, but I missed them back then. I'm so glad TCM finally aired them again!
These are the movies I really enjoy--the ones that air infrequently in the daytime rather than the big spectaculars they air so often in primetime. This was truly a rich day of TCM programming for me!
Robbie
BREAKING NEWS: Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland
in Staff Discussion Forum
Posted
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > From what I have heard reported, I don't believe the promise is legally binding on the judge.
>
> I don't think we're talking about something having to be "legally binding". A prosecutor should be able to trust a judge to keep his word without having him sign a legal agreement. When prosecutors can't trust judges to do what they promise to do, then that just undermines the very purpose of having plea bargain agreements in the first place.
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.
>
> > Clearly, I haven't seen the documentary. How many people said there was substantial misconduct on the judge's part? What was the misconduct?
>
> From what I can remember, pretty much everybody. It has been probably about six months or so since I watched it, so I can't list all of the examples off the top of my head. However I do hope to watch it again in the near future. At that point, I'll be happy to discuss all of the specific examples that are mentioned in it.
Now I'm interested in seeing it.
>
> > As I've said before, I find a certain ideology strange that shows so much scorn and condemnation for the prosecution and incarceration of criminals, but doesn't have any condemnation of the criminals' actions.
>
> Who's condemning "the prosecution and incarceration of criminals"? I cannot recall anyone saying that, specifically.
There just seems to be a lot more focus on finding the tiniest of mistakes in the justice system and holding them up as glaring crimes, and not much focus on holding up the actions of the criminals as glaring crimes. And, just to be clear, I acknowledge that Polanski has not been legally found guilty of the crime, because the plea was ultimately not accepted and there was no trial.
>
> Now, I can't speak for others, but I don't see the point in stating the obvious. I think everyone knows that those crimes are wrong. I don't see the need to state the obvious. I'm under the assumption that everybody already knows and understands that. Does a crime ever cease to be wrong because someone isn't repeating it over and over again?
>
> If I ended every post here with something along the lines of "**** 13-year olds is very wrong", wouldn't that seem to be pretty much like saying I don't expect that people reading this already know that? Wouldn't that be the most condescending thing I could possibly say in relation to the case? As if I expected people actually needed to be told, or reminded?
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.