Comments on: Polanski Lawyers Cite Dying Witness as Reason to Hold Hearing Soon

By: vernon willis

vernon willis — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:33:36 +0000

Antisemitism? Whether Roman Polanski is a Jew or a Zoroastrian, he plied an 8th-grader with booze and a dangerous drug then raped and sodomized her. Bottom line. All the lame “intellectual” excuses in the world won’t change a thing. And since the “taxpayers” favor holding Polanski accountable by an overwhelming margin, don’t worry about how much it costs. It’s their money.

By: joe

joe — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:37:08 +0000

The rich always get a pass in cases like this. Drugging and raping a child is a minor inconvenience for a hollywood genius.

By: Stephan Pickering

Stephan Pickering — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 07:15:10 +0000

It is ironic that no-one but Samantha Geimer testified decades ago — and neither she, nor her mother (who, I believe, was perfectly aware of her daughter’s sexual activities, and was, in a sense, ‘pimping’ her daughter as being older by allowing her to accompany Reb Polanski), were ever cross-examined by Reb Polanski’s legal team. With all due respect to Ms Geimer — because of her active support in having the matter dismissed and believing Reb Polanski’s apologies to her — why hasn’t there been an effort to cross-examine her mother? I believe the activities of the DA’s office smacks of antisemitism, as do the self-righteous complaints from mediasaurs (most of whom can barely phrase a sentence without moving their lips). How many of the mediasaurs have active sex with teen-agers they either pay for or are their mistresses or their S&M masters? I grew up in LA in another lifetime, and know full well the hypocrisy (and functional illiteracy) of type writers who pose as ‘journalists’.
STEPHAN PICKERING / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham

By: RemoteControlHQ

RemoteControlHQ — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 06:42:37 +0000

California Courts are the slimiest chambers on the continent.

He might be refering to the prizes the judges and prosecutors thought they were gonna get if a) they gave the most extreme punishment ever b) while making a mockery of the process of justice. As if it’s a game, a point of pride to get away from planted errors. Pardon the worst and crush the least. Prizes like awards to society, memberships, Scalia’s lap, key to the grove, bohemian bonfires, and lures that had nothing to do with Polanski whatsoever, only, because of his entourage, and his films, they assumed he was one to crush. All at taxpayer expense of course.
This is lore. The law doesn’t have to be so petty.

By: Herz Quartier

Herz Quartier — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 06:23:57 +0000

Sorry might be misreading your text, but all the legal jargon reads as if Espinoza is acting out of pure spite and vindictiveness. same might be true for others in the process that have some major anger issues because not of the crime, but because of the art. And maybe even not his (the defendent) but others, the many other artists who used his technique or concepts in their work. In a sense using him as a proxy war between two guards. It is completely false that he was informed of anything at all, he might have been in pure survival mode. But surely the judicial staff is showing their true nature, using him to extract information about who know what. Against such a disgusting background, how can there even be pretense of a fair trial? It’s all a waste of time, a bunch of leaches on all sides, compromise of the swiss-american diplomatic stability, and a huge financial burden on California, a states far too endebted to gamble.

It’s great you’re covering the trial.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 03:17:32 +0000

Marsha Clark is the stupidest woman who ever lived, who was paid millions to lose the O.J. Simpson murder trial. But in America incompetent prosecutors are treated as heroes.

As for the Polanski case, it should have been dropped decades ago. This is ridiculous.