Polanski Loses First Bid for Release
Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Politics, Other Festivals
The complicated story of Roman Polanski and his flight from the US over 30 years ago is starting to get very, very simple – at least when it comes to the law. The NYT reports that Polanski (and his legal representatives) have lost the appeal to have the director released from a Zurich jail following his arrest for a 2005 international warrant. The appeal was rejected by the Swiss Justice Ministry and a spokesperson for the ministry was quoted as saying the reason they rejected the request was that they felt "there is a high risk of flight" -- and it's not like you can blame them, the man does have a habit of disappearing when in the middle of a sticky situation. That hasn't stopped his legal representatives from asking Switzerland's highest criminal court to free Polanski, but representatives from the Justice Ministry even submitted letters explaining their opposition to freeing the director. However, there is still a chance the director could be freed, and according to the NYT, "The Federal Criminal Court has said it will rule in the case in the "next weeks," and a verdict in either direction can be appealed to the country's highest judicial body, the Federal Tribunal."
Unfortunately (for Polanski) the 'smart money' seems to be on the likelihood that the 75-year-old director will continue to wait in a Zurich jail until he is extradited to the U.S., a process that could take months. Former Justice Minister Christoph Blocher was quoted as saying, "the case against Polanski now was quite simple and that he "must be extradited." -- which is a far cry from the earlier popular opinion. The likelihood of Polanski being able to walk away from this arrest is getting slimmer by the day, and this is only the beginning -- just imagine what will happen once those 'wheels of justice' really start turning.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-06-2009 @ 9:33PM
Michael said...
Good. He derserves to pay for his awful crime.
Reply
10-06-2009 @ 9:50PM
Mack Swift said...
All these Hollywood blowhard idiots like Selma Hayek and Whoopi Goldburg need a good swift kick to the teeth and a lobotomic head examination. Claiming that it wasn't rape-rape, just rape; or he's an acclaimed director and an Oscar winner and an artist. And it was a long time ago and we should forgive and forget. They're acting like Polanski is above reproach cuz he's artistic Hollywood elite.
You know what folks, he's a child rapist and a child molester. Let's put this in harsher language for you to truly understand; he fucked a little girl in that ass after pouring booze and pills down her throat. He deserves to be punished for what he did, and deserves to rot in prison for it.
There was another group of so called elitists who believed that they answered to a higher authority and were completely above reproach for what they did and what they tried to hide and cover up. That group was the Catholic Church, and hundreds of priests raped and molested hundreds of children. But did anyone call for forgiving and forgetting these crimes? Nope, but the bishops and cardinals in charge sure did try to hide it and let child molesters run free.
Hollywood, you and the Vatican were made for each other!
Reply
10-07-2009 @ 6:26PM
mo said...
first: watch your language.
And Polanski is not a child molester or a rapist, he seduced one girl, and we still don´t know that all those happened against her will. I dont think so. And: Im not defending others who comit such crime, but saying that someones a molester, because of one mistake, thats a bit false i think. And didnt you hear that the victim herself wants to drop the charges, and only wants to live her peaceful life. I think this could mean that shes ashamed of not telling the truth 32 years ago. But thats my opportunity, about Polanski´s case...
10-07-2009 @ 6:46PM
eugene said...
wrong wrong wrong.
Having sex with a child makes you a child rapist. In this country we don't believe a child has the ability to make decisions in regards to having sex, never mind the booze and drugs. And you must be a sad sick fuck if you think booze and drugs are part of "seduction".
Secondly, the victim did not say she wanted the charges dropped because Polanski didn't rape her, she said she wanted the charges dropped because the media attention on her was ruining her life and her family's life. There's a big difference.
Third, if the language used is what makes you mad and not the idea of a 42 year old man drugging and anally raping a child then you're one sick sad individual.
10-08-2009 @ 9:58AM
Eric H said...
mo·lest (m-lst)
tr.v. mo·lest·ed, mo·lest·ing, mo·lests
1. To disturb, interfere with, or annoy.
2. To subject to unwanted or improper sexual activity.
By definition he is a molester it only takes once. Do you children mo? If you do why don't you leave them with him. Maybe he can take some pictures, pressure your kid into doing nude photos. Then on to the wine with Quaalude and sex, He is quite the charmer
10-07-2009 @ 7:57AM
Stan Winsome said...
Meh- he was on borrowed time now it's time to repay the crime...
Reply
10-07-2009 @ 2:38PM
RTMS said...
I'm glad he's in jail and staying there. With the few months he has to stay in Switzerland, along with even more months in jail in the US because they won't let him out on bail again, even if they somehow get him off he's at least spent time in jail for the original crime and for running. Not only that but he will have a criminal record as a sex offender and be listed in a sex offender's registry which should make his life much harder.
Reply