January 22, 2010
Polanski/Goldberg/rape posts
Polanski’s wife equates child rape to “sexual liberty and permissiveness
Source: CNN
In order to reach a disposition in his case, Roman Polanski must appear in person in front of the judge in an LA courtroom
Ruling was made by LA Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza.
Polanski’s lawyer CHAD HUMMEL had hoped that the questions of alleged prosecutorial and judicial misconduct could have been addressed without Polanski present. He also argued that his client had been sentenced, which of course is not true. He spent half the time and was then to receive his final sentence, which is when he fled.
HUMMEL:
Mr. Polanski did not flee from justice. He left because a corrupt judge was going to sentence him a second time.
The judge is dead so there is no way to know for sure what he would have done. And in addition to the drugging and raping, Polanski faces charges of failure to appear and fleeing the jurisdiction.
Judge Espinoza also ruled against SAMANTHA GEIMER’s motion to have the case dismissed. She argued she was not notified before they arrested Polanski and should have been and cited a law protecting victims of crime . Judge said not what the law intended.
Geimer has been lobbying for the case against Polansik to be dropped. She is the one who gets hassled each time he is in the news. And her Grand Jury testimony was not supposed to be released and it was. He got a sweet pleas deal because she just wanted it over and didn’t want to testify. And 30 years later it’s still not over.
Her lawyer LARRY SILVER:
Her suffering must come to an end.
Why should Polanski care?
He’s spending his “house arrest” drinking wine and eating gourmet food in a very comfortable ski chalet at the base of the Alps while she spends her days dodging paparazzi.
One wonders why he doesn’t just return. He’s already been locked up longer than he probably would have been (if at all) in the US. Could he be worried someone else will come forward?
