Roman Polanski Held For Sex With A 13 Yr Old Girl

[Mergie Master]

Wasn't he Sharon Tate's husband? Sharon was the one who was pregnant and the Manson bunch cut her baby out and murdered her.

Roman Polanski in Swiss detention

Film director Roman Polanski has been taken into custody in Switzerland and faces extradition to the US for having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977.


Roman Polanski fled to France in 1978

CASE TIMELINE
1977 - Polanski admits unlawful sex with Samantha Geimer, 13, in Los Angeles
1978 - flees to Britain after US arrest warrant is issued
1978 - immediately moves to France where he holds citizenship
1978 - settles in France, where he is protected by France's limited extradition with US
2008 - Polanski's lawyer demands case be dismissed and hearing moved out of LA court
2009 - Polanski's request to have hearing outside LA is denied

Mr Polanski, 76, was detained in Zurich on Saturday as he travelled from France to collect a lifetime achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival.

He is being held under a 2005 international alert issued by the US.

Mr Polanski has been to Switzerland before, but this time US authorities apparently knew of his trip in advance.

A Swiss spokesman said the US would now have to make a formal extradition request.

The director can contest his detention and any extradition decision in the Swiss courts, he added.

Mr Polanski's lawyer, Georges Kiejman, said he planned to challenge his client's arrest.

"We are going to try to lift the arrest warrant in Zurich," he told France Info radio. "The [extradition] convention between Switzerland and the United States is not very clear."

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.

In recent years, he has tried to have the rape case dismissed, claiming the original judge, who is now dead, arranged a plea bargain but later reneged.

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".

'Shock and dismay'

The Paris-born Polish filmmaker - who is also a French citizen - has not set foot in the US for more than 30 years.

His Oscar for directing 2002 film The Pianist was collected by Harrison Ford, who had previously starred in his 1988 thriller, Frantic.

France's culture minister said he was "dumbfounded" by Mr Polanski's detention in Switzerland.

Frederic Mitterrand said he "strongly regrets that a new ordeal is being inflicted on someone who has already experienced so many of them".

He added that French President Nicolas Sarkozy was "following the case with great attention and shares the minister's hope that the situation can be quickly resolved".

The organisers of the Zurich Film Festival said Polanski's detention had caused "shock and dismay", but that they would go ahead with a planned retrospective of the director's work.

A special ceremony is planned for Sunday night "to allow everyone to express their solidarity for Roman Polanski and their admiration for his work", festival managers said in a statement.

Meanwhile, British author Robert Harris - who had been working with Mr Polanski on a film adaptation of his novel The Ghost - said he was taken aback by the weekend's events.

"One of the reasons I'm absolutely shocked and stunned by his arrest is that we have worked together extensively in Switzerland, where he has a home," Harris said.

"If he was such a wanted criminal why did they let him own a house and travel back and forth freely?"

But justice officials in both Switzerland and the US said the difference this time was that Washington had sent a provisional arrest warrant.

William Sorukas, chief of the US Marshals Service's domestic investigations branch, told the Associated Press that investigators learned about the trip days in advance and were therefore able to prepare for an arrest.

"There have been other times through the years when we have learned of his potential travel but either those efforts fell through or he didn't make the trip," he said.

[Swamp Rat]

This has been brewing for decades.

[Turd Ferguson]

The noose can still be tied the same way-

[Mergie Master]

I see where the victim, the girl, now a woman, wants the charges dropped.

So.....I have a legal question about that.

Can a charge like rape be 'dropped'?

I've always been under the impression that certain crimes, like violent felonies for instance, can't be dropped by the victim. I thought those type of crimes were pressed, or pursued, by the state for the good and safety of the citizens at large. I would imagine that rape would be one of those crimes.

[Swamp Rat]

The state can press the case without the victim. Makes it a lot harder.

[Mergie Master]

The state can press the case without the victim. Makes it a lot harder.

So it's up to the state whether they want to or not?

I swear I thought it was mandatory that the state press certain types of crimes.

In a case of murder, where the victim isn't with us anymore, how does that work? That's mandatory for the state right? Obviously the victim can't press charges.

Oh well, live and learn.

[Swamp Rat]

Every such case I have participated in has been titled "State of South Carolina vs. <insert name of suspect here>"....

The state pursues the case... homicide trials are classic examples of instances where the victim is not able to testify (except through forensic evidence).

Criminal domestic violence cases where the responding officer(s) see direct evidence of an assault (marks, etc...) are another good example of cases where the victim doesn't have to testify. In MANY such cases, the victims try to get the charges dropped. But the state can pursue them without the victim's support of the case, if there is enough evidence from other sources.

[Mergie Master]

Ah...ok...thanks SR.

Like i said I learn something every day.

[GMAC]

The state is not required to prosecute any crime. Nor is it required to dismiss any charge just because the victim doesn't wish to prosecute. The victim's wishes are usually given great consideration, and if the victim isn't cooperative, charges will be dropped in most cases. The way the prosecutors see it, they have plenty to do with cases where victims truly are pissed off.
An exception is media darling crimes, like Criminal Domestic Violence. CDV has been co-opted by the papers and feminist watchdogs. Unless you see it every day, you cannot imagine the injustice perpetuated by police and prosecutors in CDV cases. When a domestic violence call comes in, somebody's getting arrested, usually the man, regardless of the facts. Many dysfunctional women have learned that all they have to do is make the call, and asshole's going to jail. The cops have been told that they HAVE to arrest somebody. And the prosecutor is absolutely terrified that the media will report that he dropped or reduced a CDV. Many of the solicitors in SC have a "no drop" policy, meaning that the case goes to trial no matter what facts come out after the arrest. Any criminal attorney will tell you that it's easier to negotiate a murder than a CDV.

[RLTW]

Could it be possible that the state drops the rape charge, but pursue a charge of unlawful flight to avoid prosecution?