Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Roman Polanski: Danny DeVito vs Madame Arcati ....

Actor Danny DeVito writes to Madame Arcati via Twitter, in answer to my question about whether Roman Polanski should be returned to the US, "He was forgiven. Let it be." I'm not so sure ....

I've just read the Samantha Gailey (now Geimer) transcript in the 1977 Roman Polanski sexual assault case before the LA grand jury. The details refresh one's sense of shock. I think he should go back to the US for sentencing.

The 13-year-old girl relates being plied with champagne and a Quaalude by Polanski at Jack Nicholson's house, given oral sex by him (she calls it "cuddliness") before he placed his penis inside her vagina. While they had sex "I was mostly just on and off saying 'No, stop,'" she says.

After asking her if she was on the Pill, and when she last had her period (she couldn't recall), he had second thoughts about vaginal sex and suggested sodomy, or as he put it, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" She didn't resist this "because I was afraid of him". He climaxed inside her.

His conduct was plainly predatory and abusive and I don't see that a 32-year delay in sentencing should make any difference. I also think he should get the award he's due from the Zurich Film Festival. There are plenty of cunts around who win awards - some of them are trying to get him released now.

Read the testimony

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's shocking that Madame Arcati sounds normal. Time to take another holiday.

Anonymous said...

you do sound normal, and are completely right. let's distingush accomplishment from bad behaviour, just for once. Hoe can Ronnie Harwood et al bleat on about Roman's genius (let's assume they're right) in the face of the simple fact that he coerced and then butt-fucked a 13 year old girl?

Anonymous said...

Who forgave Polanski. The victim only asked for the case to be rested because she was embarrassed by the details and publicity - she was thinking of her family. If we're agreed kids should be protected from predatory adults, then what's the difference here.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the link. Didn't realise this stuff was on the net.

Blithe Spirit said...

Thank you, MA darling,
It's a relief to see these responses to the "it's been so long and all is forgiven" argument.

I am happy for Samantha for moving on and not letting this hideous experience ruin the rest of her life and I commend her for trying to put an end to it even if it means to give the pervert some kind of amnesty, but the truth is that letting him go with just a slap on the wrist would be a slap in the face to so many children that have been victimised by grownups without a conscience.

No matter what they say, this is one instance where I am looking forward for a result that says money, status, talent, genius - NOTHING justifies a pardon or exempts you from facing the consequences of taking a child's innocence.

Make him Spector's neighbour and let him rot - slowly.

Duralex said...

Wow, Danny DeVito tweeted to you, what an honor!

I can't help thinking that the relevant question is: what was that teenage girl doing that night in Jack Nicholson's house? A friend of mine who followed the affair at the time recalls that she was actually brought there by her own mother, and they were lying about her age. Don't we know that lots of people are capable of anything for money? Sounds like Polanski was caught in a trap. And then that was in the Seventies...

Madame Arcati said...

Part of the reason at least why Polanski and the girl got together was because he was photographing her for French Vogue - or so he said. Polanski didn't deny her claims, and as the Smoking Gun site writes:

"Following his indictment on various sex charges, Polanski agreed to a plea deal that spared him prison time (he had spent about 45 days in jail during a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation). But when it seemed that a Superior Court judge might not honor the deal--and sentence Polanski to prison--the director fled the country."

There is an issue about the conduct of the trial judge, it seems clear Polanski may have reason to feel aggrieved. But that's separate from the sexual abuse matter.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm, supporting Jonathan King on one hand and then blaming Roman Polanski on the other hand, isn't there something wrong here? Come on, Clover, you can't have it both ways!

Madame Arcati said...

Hadn't realised that I "supported" J King. He has done his time for sexual offences and I'm not interested in joining in the slack-brained and hypocritical tabloid persecutions. Polanski on the other hand has not been punished - note how even I say he should get his film award. Crimes and misdemeanours don't impact on talent. Nor should talent have a bearing on crimes and misdemeanours. If Polanki wants to write in he's more than welcome. Why, even a little sniper like you has a place.

Molly Parkin said...

Quite right about Polanski.

Anonymous said...

You are right to return to the transcript of the case. People forget what actually happened. It's clear Samantha was not of an age to make a decision to stand up to Polanski, she was intimidated by his age and celebrity.

Anonymous said...

Er .... if I recall it was a set up. Can't recall the exact plot now, but I understand the Mum was involved and also I do remember at the time, after the scandal broke, everyone was saying that those LA 13 year old girls looked and behaved like 30 year hookers ..... Poor Polanski! Hope he gets off.

Anonymous said...

"If Polanki wants to write in he's more than welcome."

Ha! Dream on. You should be glad that Mr. DeVito lowered himself to your level... oh wait, he didn't have to, he's so short.

Anonymous said...

Would be very interesting to hear Jonathan King's opinion - Jonathan??

the late Susan Atkins said...

People keep ignoring the real factor for Polanski fleeing-the judge and DA conspiring to re-neg on the "plea bargain' deal. Anyone who was around at the time of the Tate murder would remember that Polanski was the victim of -as he says-"I'm an ugly Jewish dwarf" syndrome. Justice in LA is corrupted which doesn't mean those who commit crimes shouldn't pay for it but if one side won't play fair-why should the other ?.

Besides-there was less drama about Pinochet being set free, who had Chilean students machine-gunned that Roman's dilemna.

the late Sharon Tate said...

I'm reading the usual garbage being trotted out on here that I would expect to see in the tabloids. The problem is judicial skullduggery as evidenced in the prosecutor involved who said as much in a documentary, between he and the judge- although that lawyer is now recanting his statements in the documentary (see The Beast) so one way or another-he lied.

You can't have it both ways folks-Polanski fronted up for the trial and was prepared for the pre-trial agreed sentence in that time honoured dodgy"plea-bargaining" practice of US courts but they were about to dud him.

He was right to flee and cannot be guaranteed any fairness after such a long time. As usual-everyone gets their knickers in a twist when sex is involved and it shows just how good a job the tabloids have done on all-'pedo' hysteria is rampant and trial fairness goes out the window. Give it a rest. No child will be saved by Polanski's jailing and that is the the cruel joke you all play as though revenge will somehow save future victims.

Madame Arcati said...

Er, check your facts. Polanski admitted the offence.

Madame Arcati said...

The usual garbage is your own, the usual attempt to muddy the waters. Polanski put his cock in a 13 year old girl, he doesn't deny it. Now fuck off.

Anonymous said...

Whatever happened to Devito?

Duralex said...

<< Besides-there was less drama about Pinochet being set free, who had Chilean students machine-gunned >>

Well said!

Madame Arcati said...

Squid's ink.

Anonymous said...

Judges have the right to reject the terms of a plea offer - whatever deal a Prosecutor makes, there is nothing that requires a Judge to abide by it if they don't think the case merits the leniency. Polanski did not just commit statutory rape - which doesn't require any intent to rape or knowledge of age; simply the act of having sex with a minor below the age of consent. He penetrated a 13 year old girl vaginally and anally after she said no. He gave her controlled substances in order to manipulate her ability to consent. He plied her with alcohol. He fled prosecution because he feared that a judge was not going to ok a 90 day mental health commitment as sufficient sentence for his crime. He should face trial for his crimes.

the late Sharon Tate said...

Yes I've checked the facts and you are right-Polanski admitted it and I didn't say he didn't.Polanski has never denied the facts-ever.

Read what I said again-Polanski went to trial and accepted the plea bargain. These plea bargains in themselves are dodgy and I've said-no-one should be able to avoid their crime but here has to be judicial fairness.

Surely even the dumbest Arcati recognises this. If the prosecutor is on record saying he conspired with the judge which he is-which is judicial corruption-although now he denies that and says he lied at the time-it is fair to say Polanski cannot be guaranteed to receive a fair hearing.

They're the breaks. Your anger should be directed towards corrupt court officials who allowed the whole process to end up in this shamozzle.

And check the facts-Polanski has always said he would go an do the 10 months that was part of the plea bargain but the LA DA office have fucked up the whole thing. That's what comes of electing court officials and District Attorneys.

Sometimes crooks escape and there ain't nothing you can do about it.

Anonymous said...

Mahommed had em younger than 13

Madame Arcati said...

So, Shazza, he should return to the US and sort it out.

Ross Eldridge said...

One wonders, Madame, whether the Danny DeVitos would be so forgiving if this crime had been committed against a boy of just 13 years. And does the fact that it happened at Jack N's place somehow make it not quite so awful? What if a priest had done this in his vicarage to a young girl or a young boy? I'm wondering if Polanski has seen Almodovar's "Bad Education".

Madame Arcati said...

Yes Ross, interesting questions. And I'm sure the perspective of a few above would be different if they were a parent of a 13 year old girl inseminated by the director up the arse.

But I'm sure it is merely his genius which mitigates the offence.

the late tired and emotional Sharon Tate said...

Of course it was a despicable crime and Polanski's celebrity or art shouldn't come into it.
But those LA DAs have form. They stuffed up the Simpson and Jackson trials because they go overboard and bend the rules.

Anon is right that judges don't have to abide by the 'plea bargain' deal but then that again is going to stuff up other cases.

Read The Beast and you will see Marcia Clark's take on the case (and she blew the OJ prosecution).It isn't the judge's changing the deal-it's the fact that the prosecutor spoke to the judge-and that's plain out of order which is also why he's now claiming he didn't actually talk to him. That would have been enough to get the case thrown out.

I'm not arguing for Polanski-I'm arguing for correct legal procedure and I don't reckon he could ever get it now although they'd probably jail him longer for the unlawful flight than the actual crime.

As for him having "paid the price"-you can exile me to the South of France any day.

Jonathan King said...

All I can add, knowing nothing of the case, is the fact that then, as now, a plea of guilty does not mean somebody was guilty. Many mitigating circumstances get washed away as lawyers and police persuade innocent people to admit guilt, chipping away with "you'll be convicted anyway" and other reasons to give up. So I would say - never believe transcripts or pleas or "admission". Likewise, sometimes people did dreadful things having convinced themselves all was fine. Neither extreme is the reality, most times. But what is clear here is that vengeance and vindictive acts seem to have taken over tolerance and kindness in the world. Personally I think we should all be nice to everyone.

Duralex said...

Personally, what most shocks me is that in our "democratic" societies you can be prosecuted 30 years after the facts for a oh how dubious rape, just as if it were a crime against humanity! This is beyond insane!

And of course the virtuous defenders of good morality (including those professional gossips who live upon that sort of "scandals") are all up in arms and thumb down. Yuk, sorry guys, I think I'm going to puke, tabernak!

Blithe Spirit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jonathan King said...

Well Blithe Spirit, my answer to your question about "who are we to be tolerant and kind?"; who indeed? Just commentators who know very little but assume a lot and at the end of the day can pass opinion based on that. We can be tolerant and kind - kind to the "victim" who wants this to end, please. Kind to Polanski who has not, apparently, been raping and pillaging since then, 30 years ago, so we can probably assume is not a danger to young girls.

But I agree we should be fair to real victims. The problem is - how do we know which "victims" are real? Sally Clark? Barry George? Sion Jenkins? Victoria Salter, found guilty of false allegations of rape yesterday (but not much covered in the tabloids; it becomes so confusing to report liars who ruin lives. Far simpler to say all rapists get away with it).

Once more I repeat - I do not know the facts from 30 years ago in California. But I can guess that neither extreme is the truth. And say again; a little kindness, charity and tolerance goes a long way in this case where even the victim feels more abused by the media and us gawpers than by Polanski.

Duralex said...

You're making my point, BS. People like you really have a funny conception of what a crime against humanity is actually. I won't argue any further. Do keep your comfortable blinders and nurture your self-righteous paranoia.

Blithe Spirit said...

Oh, for Pete's sake! I take back what I said about being relieved by the reactions to this discussion.

I see it didn't take much whining from a couple of coward bigots, crying foul, not fair and calling THE VICTMIN a Lolita for this lot to be intimidated into stopping to refute that YES Duralex, it is A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. A 43 year old renowned, influential celebrity scheming to get a young teenager drunk and forcing himself on her that is able to escape prosecution and conviction is JUST THAT, because it reflects that in this "democratic" society the common person has no equal opportunity for their rights to be protected against those that have money and influence.

You do wrong and you have the power to run away from justice for 30 years until no body cares? By all means darling, do so... at the end of the 30 years you will even find knuckle-heads that will defend you and say "no harm done". Isn't that precious!

Why don't you explain to us Duralex, since you seem to be privy to the victim's family state of mind when they where preparing the "trap" for Polanski what was their ultimate goal? And explain just "how dubious" this rape is; what part do you need to be clarified on, dear? That her mother couldn't imagine she was throwing her young daughter into any kind of dangerous situation because she was gullible enough not to fathom that a personality with Polanski's professional reputation could be a pervert? Or is it that you think Polanski was coerced into ADMITTING he gave alcohol and drugged not just a young woman, but an underage child to prevent her from resisting his intentions?

I don't quite know what to make of JK putting in a statement like:
"what is clear here is that vengeance and vindictive acts seem to have taken over tolerance and kindness in the world. Personally I think we should all be nice to everyone."
What does vengeance and vindictiveness has to do with this case, JK? Who's vengeance, vindictiveness are you talking about and why bring it into this discussion? Who are we to be tolerant and kind to at this point?

As to Shazza/cousel-wanna-be, you have me dizzy with your: Polanksi is guilty, but he was conned, he should be brought to justice, but he was treated unfairly, the process should go this way but this other way too, it probably will be like this, but then again not, blah-blah yes, but blah-blah-no,
"These plea bargains in themselves are dodgy and I've said-no-one should be able to avoid their crime but here has to be judicial fairness."
It's because there are a few of people with the same ability that you have to talk in circles who have managed to become barristers and end up working for government, that more cases get "stuff up". I think you should have your say, but then again, you should shut up. Leave the job of talking in circles with empty rhetoric to the defence team, to make the jurors lose perspective of the issue at hand and cut Polanski loose, just like OJ's defence did; at least he stood trial and went free after due process; isn't that what you ask for, Shazz, correct legal procedure?

And don't even get me started with "the turd" taking the opportunity to come afloat just to let out another one of it's mental farts! Give me patience!

Why isn't anyone else making these scumbags shut up, MA darling? Do any of you still wonder why it is that more rape victims don't even seek proper help from authorities? This is what they will have to put up with: people saying it was no big deal, they must have provoked it or their are not worth defending because they are sluts anyway.

That is what is a crime against humanity.

Blithe Spirit said...

Oh please, your attempts to sell yourselves as the bigger person are so clumsy! How easy it is to claim "witch hunt", how frivolous. I see how when we were discussing Farah Damji, who had faced the consequences of her wrongdoings, nobody would lay off her and continued to call her an incorrigible con; where was the leniency, the will to encourage her to change her ways? But now it is this "talented and renowned" individual and some mistake must have been done; is it possible he did not commit a crime and if he goes back it will just be revenge?

Don't even try to shut me up by calling me moralist self-righteous and other names for defending the case should be brought to justice; call me the purple avenger if you like, it will not change the facts. And we may not know ALL the facts (another pointless argument meant to blur the subject and get away with breaking the law) but we know enough facts to see that what Polanski has done is break the law to the detriment of the rights of a young girl (who I repeat doesn't want to be put through the ordeal again, because she has moved on and she knows she will have to face arguments like yours that her "extreme" version is not completely truthful and facing the memory is bad enough to have to be humiliated at a court room as if she could be the one that needs to be accused).

Generalising won't do any good either, because it only adds to my point that each of those cases must be looked into and go through the process. Yes, the system is flawed; the guilty get away with murder, the not guilty are wrongfully convicted, that is a matter to be discussed at another time. In fact JK, all along I have agreed with your claim that you shouldn't have been convicted if it is true that you were just a young man in his late teens/early twenties having mutually consensual sex with boys just a few months younger than you because it was just a matter of an imaginary line put up by the law and the circumstances under which this happened should have been taken into account but as I see how fiercely you argue that Polanski should be treated leniently as if this man is in exactly the same situation you were put into, I'm not so sure I agree with it anymore; it makes me feel you hide something. The system should allow for circumstances of every case to be taken into account (such as girl/boy just over the age of consent having consensual sex with a girl/boy just underage, to not be treated like a full blown statutory rape), and the accused are to face trial and it's consequences, there it to be acquitted or convicted.

Do you want to use the "Polanski has not been raping and pillaging since then" argument? Use it to give comfort to rape victims who's rapists have not been caught; tell it to the families of the Zodiac killer victims. Tell them those people knew then they had done wrong and have changed their ways and now live quiet lives. The only difference between those transgressors and Polanski is that he has the privilege to hide in plain sight and blow raspberries at the law. Then all we have to do when we want something so bad that we don't care about the consequences, about who we may cause harm to, all we will have to say is "Mommy, I promise I won't do it anymore" while we think "sweet! I had my way this time and that's all that matters".

MA darling, it's too bad that the discussion has split in two threads; maybe we should go to the other page.

Jonathan King said...

Blithe; thank you for your support but I hate to disillusion you; I was not convicted of being in my teens/early twenties and going with boys a few months younger (though I did) but of being in my 30s and 40s and going with teens under 16 (which I did not). I suspect you blurred the facts being sympathetic to my attitude. This is easy to do and human nature. I am innocent of the convictions against me but those convictions were not as you thought.

Blithe Spirit said...

Well JK, then if you told the truth and your accusers lied, your resentment (or whatever) should be aimed at them and at your defence team for their inability to prove you right and prove your accusers flawed moral character and twisted intentions. Do you feel any kindness towards your accusers today? I'd like to know if you wouldn't just love, today, to find the way to expose your accusers scheme and see justice prevail, to your benefit. Don't you think you're being a bit unkind yourself by not giving every victim the benefit of the doubt, assuming they are probably lying and 'accusing' them of unkindness and vengeance starved just because they seek justice - to the end?

Jonathan King said...

No, Blithe, I feel no hatred or desire for vengeance towards my false accusers at all; I blame the corrupt and lazy judicial system which allows people to invent, inflate or exaggerate for compensation and profit; I feel a desire to change police morality so they stop "assisting" witnesses in interviews (watch Criminal Justice); I feel inclined to inform those who, like me, assumed things about the system that are just not true; I would like the media to grow responsible and stop letting A GOOD STORY dominate all morality.
I'm incredibly grateful that I had the fascinating experience that enabled me to discover all these things and don't resent the situation that caused it.
Watch Vile Pervert; The Musical to get a better specific picture of my case.
And in general - I believe all victims should be taught to move on in a positive way. That's how they win and beat tragedy.