Separate the person from the art..really???

Um....not sure what the exact legal terminology for these offenses was at the time, but most likely a 13-year-old girl possibly could not "legally" give "consent" to a 43-year-old man. So really, think of that - he plead to intercourse with a 13 yr old girl - a 43-YEAR-OLD MAN!

And let's not forget she was given drugs.

Also, he fled the country when he learned he might be jailed. So evidently he did not serve his sentence.

Regardless of what it was pleaded down to, he still did what he did and never completed a possible sentence. He fled.

Lastly, how the victim feels nowadays that is her right because this is her life and if she feels he has been punished enough, then that is her right, but still, Polanski HAS NOT been punished for what he did.

He plead down to a lesser charge but for all intents and purposes what he did would be considered statutory rape.

"who believes in Pizzagate and aliens"

What's the problem with believing in aliens? I think NOT believing in them makes you a fucking moron.

Btw, how is that even an argument?

I forgive him too. Now let's send him to prison.

The level of stubbornness on some people amazes me. Get the fuck over it already.

He did pay. According to the original prosecutor he did fulfill his duty to the State and the People of California. It's not up to a crooked judge who was facing backlash for his horrific behaviour to an actual rape victim he punished in another case he was on at the time. His country club cronies were giving him a hassle due to his treatment of her, that they told him if he went soft on Polanski he would more or less be expelled from the country club. He succumbed to outside pressure to punish Polanski outside of the SENTENCING GUIDELINES at the time. See, the statistics proved that no other man who plead guilty to the same crime in the previous year of 1976 spent one day in jail, let alone prison for it. Only one man had: Roman Polanski. That was the 42 day hold in Chino Penetentiary where Charles Manson and Charles Watson were serving time for the murder of Sharon Tate in 1969. Rittenband went above and beyond what is LAWFUL to sentence Polanski to a worse sentence than the guidelines allowed. Three COURT APPOINTED psychiatrists found him not a sexual predator, not likely to reoffend, and not a deviant. They advised no more prison time and to accept the guilty verdict and be done with it. Roger Gunson, the original prosecutor accepted that judgement from the prison and in close negotiations with Geimer's attorney and Polanski's felt Polanski should be done as time served. The only one who didn't was the aforementioned Rittenband who felt the three reports "whitewashed" Polanski and therefore he was going to sentence Polanski to more prison time. Again, no other man in the State of California ever spent time in prison for the count Polanski plead guilty to. He did serve his time. This according to the original prosecutor, and Samantha Geimer's own attorney. They were all pleased with the outcome. All Judge Rittenband had to do was bang the gavel and have it done. But no. He wanted to be seen as "doing his duty" when in all reality, he was a buffoon. Rittenband is solely responsible for this travesty. Roger Gunson has said so. Douglas Dalton has said so. Samantha Geimer has said so. Law reviews have said so.

Ms. Geimer has gone through ZERO anguish over this. She got her payout in the 90s for her "distress".

Polanski did NOT receive a "sweetheart" deal. He got a sucker punch to the solar plexus. And the continued legal wranglings are that continued sucker punching. He plead to the charge all the lawyers saw fit. The sentencing guidelines saw fit. The psychiatrists who examined him saw fit. The only one who didn't see fit was the self aggrandizing judge who wanted publicity on the whole thing.

To let you know I have the court documents on all aspects of this case including the report from the rapekit. According to that there were ZERO fluids of his found on her body. None inside or outside her body. Her body was clean. When she was asked by the prosecutor if she'd washed, douched, had an enema and or bathed of any kind she said "No" to all questions. How was she so clean if she was "raped"? According to the swabs taken from the underpants (which no chain of custody could be proven) they contained a one quarter sized stain that was not a match to Polanski. It belonged, however, to a sterile man. Polanski is not sterile hence his fathering two children with his current wife Emmanuelle Seigner. No documentation was presented to court saying he'd had a vasectomy. So if it wasn't Polanski's, whose was it? There was also the nature of her 18 year-old boyfriend who she'd had sex with earlier that year. Who was not charged by the way. There was her mother's boyfriend in the house at the time. According to her she consented to having sex whenever and with whoever she liked. So there's that food for thought. As for the AP timeline, if you'd already paid for your crime, would you want to pay more for a crime in which no prison time was spent by other men the entire year before? He fled because the judge who'd reneged two other times before, could not be trusted. This from all involved including the original prosecutor. Did the AP timeline say that after that day in court when he planned to bring Polanski back and sentence him to a harsher penalty, did it also say that the prosecutor left court that day to file a brief with the court to have Judge Rittenband removed for his ILLEGAL CONDUCT? Did it say he got together with Polanski's attorney and Geimer's attorney to have Rittenband removed and have a judge seated who could rule without bias? Did it? Did it say in 2009 after Polanski's Swiss arrest, did it say that Roger Gunson sat for a deposition in which he stated Polanski had served the alloted time required and that Rittenband acted illegally. However, when the Swiss wanted that deposition in order to assess the extradition request, they were denied that document. Speaks volumes. So no, Polanski is not the villain here. He served his time.

My ties are to the truth of justice. Not persecution. I defend the truth. Not lies, innuendo, nor a judge seeking to make fame off of his court docket. I also defend Woody Allen from the same persecution from a vendictive ex hell bent on making sure he's ostracized from his livelihood. However, she refuses to look at her own brother who is in prison for three counts of child rape of eight year old boys.

"And to suggest a 13-year-old minor could give consent is ludicrous and disgusting."

She can... if the other person is of the same age.