Switzerland arrests Polanski for the LAPD after 30 years

Status
Not open for further replies.

mitsho

Deity
Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
8,225
Location
Europe, more or less
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/movies/28polanski.html?hp

Roman Polanski Is Arrested in Switzerland

By MICHAEL CIEPLY and BROOKS BARNES
LOS ANGELES — In a stunning move set-up by prosecutors in Los Angeles and Washington, Swiss authorities late Saturday arrested the film director Roman Polanski as he arrived at Zurich’s airport, paving the way for his possible extradition to the United States in connection with a 32-year-old sex case.

Mr. Polanski, 76, was detained as he arrived to receive an award at the Zurich Film Festival. Although he is expected to oppose extradition, the arrest raised a strong possibility that Mr. Polanski would be returned to the United States to face sentencing under his conviction for having had sex with a 13-year-old girl, Samantha Geimer, in 1977.

The arrest came as a shock to Mr. Polanski and those who have worked closely with him both on movies and in a continuing attempt to lift the outstanding arrest warrant against him. He had just finished shooting a film in Germany and has traveled often to Switzerland, where he maintained a home.

In Paris, the French culture minister, Frederic Mitterand, said in a statement that he was “astonished” by the arrest. In a separate statement, the French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner said he had spoken with his Swiss counterpart, and communicated “the desire of the French authorities that the rights of Mr. Polanski be fully respected and that this affair rapidly find a favorable resolution.”

The Swiss Justice Ministry said in a statement that Mr. Polanski, the renowned director of such celebrated films as “Chinatown” and “Rosemary’s Baby,” was put in “provisional detention” pending extradition based on the United States arrest warrant. “Whether Roman Polanski will be effectively extradited to the USA or not can be established only after the extradition process judicially has been finalized,” the statement said. The ministry’s statement added that Mr. Polanski could fight extradition in various courts.

In Los Angeles, a representative for prosecutors described the arrest as all but inevitable in a game of cat and mouse they had never stopped playing. “Any time word is received that Mr. Polanski is planning to be in a country that has an extradition treaty with the U.S., we go through diplomatic channels with the arrest warrant,” said Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office.

Ms. Gibbons said extradition requests had been pursued several times in the past, particularly when Mr. Polanski was believed to be planning a trip from France, where he lives, to England, which has laws that would allow extradition.

This time around, said Ms. Gibbons, who spoke by telephone on Sunday morning, prosecutors learned more than a week ago that Mr. Polanski was planning to accept the award in Zurich, and requested that the U.S. government officially request the extradition.

Mr. Polanski has in recent months tried to move the longstanding criminal case out of Los Angeles, claiming that the local court system was biased against him. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge in January struck down the request; Mr. Polanski’s lawyers filed an appeal in July that is still pending.

In a joint statement, Mr. Polanski’s American lawyers Douglas Dalton, Bart Dalton and Chad Hummel said they had been unaware that any extradition attempt was pending, and had hoped that their pending appeal would resolve the case. “Separate counsel will be retained for those proceedings,” the statement said with regard to the extradition request.

Mr. Dalton, reached by phone on Sunday, declined to discuss the matter. Mr. Hummel, through a representative, declined to comment. Jeff Berg, Mr. Polanski’s talent agent, also had no comment.

Assuming Mr. Polanski does not waive his right to appeal the extradition, he can challenge both the arrest warrant and any eventual extradition order, said Guido Balmer, a spokesman for the Swiss Federal Justice Department, and appeal both issues in the Swiss federal penal court of justice. If he were to lose those appeals, he could then get a final hearing on both issues at the Federal Court of Justice.

Mr. Balmer said he could not estimate how long any appeal might go on, but said: “It’s true that it won’t be a matter of hours.” As of Sunday morning, Mr. Polanski’s representatives in Los Angeles did not know precisely where he was being held, according to two people who were briefed on the situation but spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment.

Ms. Geimer has long since identified herself publicly as the victim in the case, and expressed forgiveness for Mr. Polanski, who fled the U.S. on the eve of sentencing in 1978 after becoming convinced that a judge in the case, Laurence J. Rittenband, meant to backtrack on a plea arrangement and send him back to prison.

The legal proceedings around Mr. Polanski heated up again in late 2008 with the release of a documentary film, “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” that detailed claims of judicial and prosecutorial wrongdoing at the time of the director’s original arrest.

Citing the film and other evidence, Mr. Polanski’s lawyers asked in December 2008 that the case against him be dropped. In February, Los Angeles Superior Court judge Peter Espinoza rejected the request, citing Mr. Polanski’s fugitive status, though he indicated during a hearing that he was open to arguments that misconduct had occurred in the case.

The documentary, directed by Marina Zenovich, included an interview in which a former deputy prosecutor who was not involved in the Polanski case described having coached Judge Rittenband, who has since died, about Mr. Polanski’s sentencing.

Mr. Polanski was initially indicted in 1977 on six felony charges that included rape, sodomy and providing a controlled substance to Ms. Geimer. He eventually pleaded guilty to one count of having sex with a minor but left the country after becoming convinced he would be sent back to jail after having undergone a 42-day psychiatric evaluation in state prison. He has not been back in the country since, giving his acceptance speech for an Oscar for directing “The Pianist” by satellite from Europe.

Famous as the director of “Knife in the Water,” “Repulsion” and other films — and as the husband of Sharon Tate, who was killed by the Manson crime family — Mr. Polanski became the center of a media storm that foreshadowed the later celebrity tsunamis of O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake.

Mr. Polanski is a French citizen but has long owned a home in Switzerland near the luxury resort of Gstaad. Why Mr. Polanski would suddenly be arrested after flying in and out of Zurich without trouble for years, flummoxed his Hollywood friends on Sunday — although Ms. Gibbons said it was simply a matter of having enough advance notice that Mr. Polanski would visit a country in which he was vulnerable.

The director has been careful to avoid certain countries – he testified by video link in a 2005 libel trial in London rather than risk entering Great Britain – but has traveled freely in Europe for decades, partly to direct new films. In 2007, he was set to film “Pompeii” in Italy before budgetary issues shut down the production. Last spring, he filmed “The Ghost” in Babelsberg, Germany, near where he filmed “The Pianist.”

Mr. Polanski’s arrest could hinder the release of “The Ghost,” a thriller about a ghostwriter whose life is put in jeopardy after he uncovers secrets while completing the memoirs of a former British prime minister. Although foreign rights were pre-sold, sales agents for the film have waited for Mr. Polanski to complete the film before lining up a United States distributor.

The film, slated for release in 2010, is still in post-production.

So, whas it the right thing to do? Is 30 years too late after the events? Will he be brought back to LA and spend his last days in prison?

Did Switzerland get something in return from the US? Was pressure put down on the Swiss authorities by the US or was it a trade? (hint: Polanski had been in Switzerland a few times for skiing)

How should the Zurich Film Festival react? Have they been wronged?

strange story
 
Gee, this is crazy. So he had sex with a pretty developed 13-year-old girl, big deal. The girl is now a mid-aged woman and she allegedly want the case to be dropped. The guy hasn't touched any underage girls since then, which makes it clear it was an isolated mistake.

Why are you trying to placate a distorted US perception of "justice"?
 
He gave the 13 year old drugs and then forcibly raped her, during a "nude photo session".

Have fun defending that.

She wants the case dropped because she wants to put the horrible event behind her, she maintains that she was drugged and forcibly raped.
 
So, whas it the right thing to do?
Extradite him. He's committed a crime.

Is 30 years too late after the events?
It's never too late to convict a criminal.

Will he be brought back to LA and spend his last days in prison?
I doubt it, but maybe.


Did Switzerland get something in return from the US? Was pressure put down on the Swiss authorities by the US or was it a trade? (hint: Polanski had been in Switzerland a few times for skiing)
Something may have been put down by the US authorities, although maybe it's Switzerland trying to put their foot down on criminals (although I do doubt it)

How should the Zurich Film Festival react? Have they been wronged?

Yeah, they've been wronged. By Polanski.
 
In a 2003 interview,[34] Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us." Furthermore, "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it".

Hang the evildoer! What the victim says is irrelevant.
 
Winner, a one time murderer only commits murder once. Do you think that, if after 30 years he hasn't done it again that he should not be tried for his one little indiscretion?

Polanski drugged and sodomized a young girl.
Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."

What's that? Why did she not resist?
Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."
"Because I was afraid of him."

EDIT: source link: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html
Does not sound too consensual, does it? Course, she is 13, so there is no such thing as consensual sex with her anyway. It's rape any way you slice it.
 
He gave the 13 year old drugs and then forcibly raped her, during a "nude photo session".

And then, he turns fugitive. Very little sympathy for the guy.
 
But he didn't commit murder and since the crime itself happened so damn long ago and the victim herself don't want him to go to jail, any trial would be a farce.

Go hunt some terrorists instead, it would be a better use of your time.
 
Gee, this is crazy. So he had sex with a pretty developed 13-year-old girl, big deal. The girl is now a mid-aged woman and she allegedly want the case to be dropped. The guy hasn't touched any underage girls since then, which makes it clear it was an isolated mistake.

Why are you trying to placate a distorted US perception of "justice"?

On one hand, yes, it does seem to be a bit over the top. (Would they search for a unknown 'criminal' the same way or had polanski the bad luck that they knew him and that he was going to Zurich for the film festival to get his prize? The latter actually being true, the trap was set up: LA authorities placed an information in Washington which via the Swiss embassy delivered it to the cantonal police of Zurich. So was it just because he is known that after 30 years, they arrested him?)

On the other hand, he did 'probably' (he's not convicted yet, right?) rape a underage girl. no point in defending that.

But isn't the point rather that there was an international warrant and Switzerland as any other (western democratic civilized) country should honour them?
 
On the other hand, he did 'probably' (he's not convicted yet, right?) rape a underage girl. no point in defending that.

He plead to 'unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor'. That's rape.


The argument seems to be (regarding his arrest) that, since he was easy to catch... we shouldn't catch him. WTH... So, if another rapist goes to the police station and turns himself in... should we be like "oh, that's too easy! Let him go!"
 
But isn't the point rather that there was an international warrant and Switzerland as any other (western democratic civilized) country should honour them?


This is more complicated. He's also a French citizen. Why should any European country extradite its own citizens (or citizens of fellow European countries) to America to face the crazy concept of American justice? If the case is solid, the Americans should provide us with the evidence and let the other country try him according to its law.
 
Quote from a BBC article on the subject:

Mr Polanski fled the US in 1978 after pleading guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with an underage girl.

He was initially indicted on six counts and faced up to life in prison.

Earlier this year, Judge Peter Espinoza agreed there was misconduct by the judge in the original case, but said Mr Polanski must return to the US to apply for dismissal.

Mr Polanski's lawyers said he would not return to the US because he would be immediately arrested as a fugitive.

The victim at the centre of the case, Samantha Geimer, has previously asked for the charges to be dropped, saying the continued publication of details "causes harm to me, my husband and children".

She has also called the court's insistence that Mr Polanski appear in person "a cruel joke".

I - really - don't - understand - why - he - fled :lol:
 
Quite frankly, we should have blown off European sense of harboring child rapist sensibilities back in the 70s and sent in a team to France to get him back to the States and screw what France thought about it. The man fled our justice system and France told the USA to bugger off for over 30 years by not returning him. Who gives a damned if he's a French citizen? He raped a girl on US soil.
 
So what if he's a French Citizen. He was in Switzerland, Swiss police is sovereign of the French state. Switzerland again is not in any state to judge the American justicial system, however nuts it may be. If the US had a criminal searched for in Switzerland, Switzerland would also want him to be arrested and brought back.

(but of course, the reason why CH just arrested him now can't really be what they tell. I mean a technicality like "we didn't know that he was in Switzerland before when he stayd here for holidays for several weeks, but this time, we knew he was coming", I'm sorry, that's ridiculous...)
 
Good. I'm glad he was caught and I hope for a quick extradition to finally face justice.

I am, however, surprised France let him move around so freely after he drugged and sodomized a thirteen year old girl.
 
mitsho said:
(but of course, the reason why CH just arrested him now can't really be what they tell. I mean a technicality like "we didn't know that he was in Switzerland before when he stayd here for holidays for several weeks, but this time, we knew he was coming", I'm sorry, that's ridiculous...)

*cough* UBS *cough*

VRWCAgent said:
Quite frankly, we should have blown off European sense of harboring child rapist sensibilities back in the 70s and sent in a team to France to get him back to the States and screw what France thought about it. The man fled our justice system and France told the USA to bugger off for over 30 years by not returning him. Who gives a damned if he's a French citizen? He raped a girl on US soil.

You should have done that after July 10, 1985. New Zealand would have supported your right to breech France's sovereignty to the death.

Winner said:
I - really - don't - understand - why - he - fled

Because he raped a thirteen year old girl. It wasn't a case of him falling just shy of the age of consent, no it was an actual rape of a thirteen year old girl. The circumstances are such that it would have been rape if she was sixty.
 
*cough* UBS *cough*

1. There's enough reason to believe that the US Government didn't want the UBS bankrupt (another bank go down losing jobs and money in the United States?).

2. The Americans would be really really bad in bargaining. I mean one guy for an absolution?

3. Even if he was just one little part of the deal, what does Washington have to do with Los Angeles? (Or, why should Washington give a rats crap and lose value in the deal for a criminal?)

4. ...
 
Wait, wait! I know why he ran! He's really innocent and he's been looking for the one-armed man that drugged, raped, sodomized, and raped again a 13 year old girl.
 
Quite frankly, we should have blown off European sense of harboring child rapist sensibilities back in the 70s and sent in a team to France to get him back to the States and screw what France thought about it. The man fled our justice system and France told the USA to bugger off for over 30 years by not returning him. Who gives a damned if he's a French citizen? He raped a girl on US soil.

Please, try.

Wait, wait! I know why he ran! He's really innocent and he's been looking for the one-armed man that drugged, raped, sodomized, and raped again a 13 year old girl.

I love how you keep repeating the word "sodomized" as if it changed something on the picture. From what I gather, there were serious concerns about the way the case was handled in the US, so I guess this is why France refused to extradite him (plus, France would be stupid if it began extraditing its own citizens).

Because he raped a thirteen year old girl. It wasn't a case of him falling just shy of the age of consent, no it was an actual rape of a thirteen year old girl. The circumstances are such that it would have been rape if she was sixty.

He was not convicted. He only admitted he had sex with her and the case was never solved. If the US court had all the evidence, why they simply didn't convict him in abstentia?

After 30 years, there is no point in reopening this crap. It happened too long ago, the society has no pressing interest on carrying out punishment and the victim doesn't want it.

And a life sentence? For this kind of rape? Heck, even if I did something like that and I really really regretted what I did, I'd rather flee than to spend the rest of my life in jail because the US obviously lacks the concept of proportionate punishment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom