Roman Polanski is free, Swiss refuse to extradite him to USA


Roman Polanski has just been freed from his Swiss house (chalet)-arrest after the Swiss government just rejected the American government’s extradition request. Polanski was caught last year when he was attempting to attend a film festival in Switzerland, and since then, it’s been a f-cking circus. To their credit, the Swiss authorities didn’t give Polanski much in the way of respect at first, although they eventually allowed him bail and detainment at his Swiss ski chalet, where he stayed with his family. All of the American charges Polanski would have had to face stemmed from his 1977 drugging, rape and sodomy of a 13-year-old girl in LA. Polanski has been “on the run” from American justice since 1978.

The Swiss government declared renowned film director Roman Polanski a free man on Monday after rejecting a U.S. request to extradite him on a charge of having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl.

The Swiss mostly blamed U.S. authorities for failing to provide confidential testimony about Polanski’s sentencing procedure in 1977-1978. The Justice Ministry also said that national interests were taken into consideration in the stunning decision.

“The 76-year-old French-Polish film director Roman Polanski will not be extradited to the USA,” the ministry said in a statement. “The freedom-restricting measures against him have been revoked.”

Polanski’s lawyer Herve Temime said the director was still at his Swiss chalet in the resort of Gstaad, where he has been held under house arrest since December. Switzerland’s top justice official said he could now leave.

“Mr. Polanski can now move freely. Since 12:30 today he’s a free man,” Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf declared.

Approving extradition had seemed the likeliest scenario after Polanski was arrested on Sept. 26 as he arrived in Zurich to receive a lifetime achievement award from a film festival. Polanski had also suffered a series of legal setbacks this year in California courts.

Widmer-Schlumpf said the decision was not meant to excuse Polanski’s crime, saying the issue was “not about deciding whether he is guilty or not guilty.”

The Oscar-winning director of Rosemary’s Baby,Chinatown and The Pianist was accused of plying his victim with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a 1977 modeling shoot and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.

What happened after that is a subject of dispute. The defense says the now deceased judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, had agreed in meetings with attorneys to sentence Polanski to a 90-day diagnostic study and nothing more. The judge later changed his mind and summoned Polanski for further sentencing — at which time he fled to his native France, attorneys say.

[From USA Today]

My guess is that France won’t extradite either, considering they never seemed interested in it before, and considering that Polanski is friendly with influential people in French society, including many French politicians. So now Polanki has free reign to live out his days in France and Switzerland. But what of other countries? Is there any other country who has the balls to extradite, if Polanski ever came into their country? Eh. Something tells me that Polanski might keep it simple from here on out – just France and Switzerland.

Are you shocked by this? CB and I were wondering if Polanski greased a few palms in Switzerland to get this decision. Is it about a pay-off, or is it something else? It’s not like the Swiss government has never profited from “doing business” with scum (like, say, the Nazis). But I don’t know. All of it seems like a colossal waste of time for the Swiss government to detain Polanski all of this time, only to release him.

ROME - OCTOBER 20: Director Roman Polanski arrives for the Italian premiere of 'Oliver Twist' at the Auditorium St Cecilia in October 20, 2005 in Rome, Italy. (Photo by Elisabetta Villa/Getty Images)

DEAUVILLE, FRANCE - SEPTEMBER 8:  Director Roman Polanski arrives for the premiere of  'Thirteen' at the 29th American Film Festival of Deauville on September 8, 2003 in Deauville, France.  (Photo by Steve Finn/Getty Images)

January 1969:  Paris-born Polish film maker, Roman Polanski.  (Photo by James Jackson/Evening Standard/Getty Images)

Header: Polanski file photo, courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

80 Responses to “Roman Polanski is free, Swiss refuse to extradite him to USA”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Dorothy says:


  2. Crash2GO2 says:

    This just ruined my day.

  3. Wembley says:

    Probably exactly what the Swiss said. The U.S. didn’t provide the information the Swiss needed to continue their legal process. It wouldn’t be the first time that the US government was unable to discern that other countries aren’t subject to our will and have their own laws.

  4. flourpot says:

    Amazing what money can do, huh.

  5. Sarah says:

    Disgusted, but not shocked.

  6. popcorny says:

    That he was detained is better than nothing.
    That the charges are not dropped, and are still active, is better than nothing.
    Someday is better than never.
    I hope he drags this out to his dying day so it lingers like a dead Albatross decomposing around his cowardly neck.
    Have a nice day, Roman … -see you in Hell.

  7. gjillie says:

    sends a great message there, Switzerland— rape a girl, stay in a chalet and not face justice. awesome.

    though, considering they harbored nazi war criminals and refused to return pillaged art work for a long time, its not entirely surprising.

  8. jc126 says:

    So why lock him up if they were only going to let him go??
    The only thing I can say, and please don’t take it the wrong way anyone, is that at least his victim doesn’t want him prosecuted. So while I think he should be, at least the victim is not wanting him to go to trial.
    Still an injustice, but it could be worse, I suppose.

  9. Lenore says:

    Seconding Wembley’s view – I’d say the US didn’t provide the information the Swiss authorities wanted. The Swiss were after all perfectly co-operative in detaining Polanski in the first place.

  10. mslewis says:

    If anybody “greased” any hands it was the U.S.!! The reason the Swiss authorities arrested Polansky is because the U.S. has them by the balls because of the secret bank accounts that criminals have over there. The Swiss are afraid of what the U.S. will do about those accounts and also the stolen art work that the Swiss are holding from the Nazi era. It seems somebody over in Switzerland finally grew some balls and decided to stop being afraid of the big, bad U.S. of A. Polanski didn’t grease anybody’s palms. He didn’t have to. The Swiss knew they had no business holding him for a case from 1977. The whole thing was ridiculous and showed the Swiss government to be a bunch of cowards. It’s about time the Swiss courts actually stood up and ended this farce.

    And, no, there is no other country in the world that would arrest Polanski. He can and probably will, travel from country to country at will because no other country will arrest him at the behest of the U.S. This silly farce is hopefully over.

    Yes, I am an American but, unlike most people on gossip sites, I’ve read about this farce on legatimate news sites both foreign and domestic and I know it was a total farce. The only authorities who wanted this man behind bars were in Los Angeles where the prosecutor’s office there have lost so many high profile cases they wanted one they thought would be a slam dunk. Turned out to be yet another loss for the incompetent morons there. HA!!

  11. jones says:

    I don’t agree with what he did but the victim didn’t want to press charges and wanted to get the charges dropped. If the victim forgave him for a mistake he made in the 70’s, then I’m okay with him being free. The legal system in the U.S. is broken and full of sh*t anyway.

  12. Brittney says:

    The victim “forgave” him because she doesn’t want her life to be connected to this any longer. She’s carried it with her for a long time and has hopefully healed and hopes to stay that way. Revisiting a rape is horrific enough that most don’t press charges to begin with.

  13. Whatever says:

    @ mslewis, what an elegant defense of a rapist who drugged and sodomized a CHILD. I am truly shocked and disturbed by the people who defend this disgusting rapist. He is a predator and yet another rich asshole who is above the law. Scary.

  14. Marjalane says:

    I see Lindsey Lohan boarding a Swissair jet by lunchtime.

  15. Tess says:

    @ mslewis

    You sound so well informed. Much more so than the rest of us gossip site cretins.

    What are your news sources? The New York Times, Wash Po, The Huffington Post, NBC, ABC, etc?

  16. Kaboom says:

    The case where the victim didn’t want to further pursue the guilty and an overly ambitious (and as we see from his paperwork filing skills, incompetent) DA didn’t go anywhere. Surprise.

    Implying that the swiss superior court is taking bribes? Low, very low.

  17. Eileen Yover says:

    There’s no telling about the payoff-but Swiss has never been desperate for money, especially enough to piss off the US. They like their neutral status way too much to make waves with anyone.
    Something tells me there was complications with the case itself.

  18. popcorny says:

    The U.S. legal system is one of the best (if not, THE best) in the world.
    But I can see how some can “miss” that, especially those that think (or would wish that) the victim’s forgiveness absolves legal responsibilty.

  19. gabs says:

    Why am i not surprised. This sucks.

  20. Katalina says:

    Farce? He drugged, raped and then sodomized a child. If it was your daughter or sister or friend, would you be so quick to renounce it as “ridiculous”?
    And assuming that just because we are on a gossip site that we have not also read about this case from legitimate news sites is ignorant. It is the actual facts of the case that made me want this man to answer for his crime. If his running away all those years ago (and staying away) wasn’t proof enough of his guilt, I don’t know what is.

  21. jones says:

    You can’t speak for the victim and tell me what she was feeling. I saw an interview where she said she just wanted to forget the whole thing. Also, to say the legal system in the U.S. is the best is subjective. Judges here get paid off also and we prosecute and send many innocent people to jail. There is still corruption in the legal system in the U.S. The typical U.S. mentality that we are the best and we can’t do no wrong is just ridiculous and one reason many foreign people don’t like Americans.

  22. di butler says:

    The original court records from the 77 trial are very clear, as is Polanski’s clear understanding of the charges. The Swiss government is basically taking Polanski’s side in that he claims they were only going to detain him a short period of time. This is 100% not what the judge said. They could have worked harder to have him extradicted long before this, but this not their screw up.

  23. lucy2 says:

    Ugh. Figures.

    I do have great sympathy for the victim who does not want all this played out again, but at the same, it wasn’t a civil case, but a criminal one, prosecuted by the state of CA.

  24. SammyHammy says:

    “And, no, there is no other country in the world that would arrest Polanski”

    Are you saying other countries generally condone raping children? Your post is pretty smug and condescending by the way. How would you “know” what other posters read or do not read, or how educated they may be on various topics?

  25. denise says:

    This is a disgrace. And to think that all of these celebrities were supporting this sick bastard. Just another case of celebrity justice. sigh.

  26. popcorny says:

    Earth to Jones … no one is speaking for the victim’s feelings.
    How you got that idea is indicative of how you view anything else.
    Regardless, her feelings have bearing in a civil case, “victim vs Polanski” … -the other case is (was) “the State/U.S. vs. Polanski”.
    Head’s up, Jones -this (that is at issue) is the State/U.S. vs Polanski.
    Try to keep up.

  27. Fluffy Kitten Tail says:

    Like Ms Lewis, I too have read about this case on legitimate news web sites, although my interpretation is much different of the case than hers is.

    He is a pedophile and rapist. Nice to see people defending him. *eyeroll*

  28. OXA says:

    No more Swiss Chocolate, Swiss cheese or watches for me.

  29. hanh says:

    Swiss condones raping children as long as your famous and they can find a loophole. Nice. Notice how they weren’t questioning the crime, they just wanted to know what happened afterwards. WHY? Who the EF cares? He committed the crime, he should do the time! What is so hard about that?

    BTW Polanski paid the victim an undisclosed settlement. I’m guessing as part of that settlement, it buy her agreeing to support his freedom.

  30. Lola says:

    Lenore: Seconding Wembley’s view – I’d say the US didn’t provide the information the Swiss authorities wanted. The Swiss were after all perfectly co-operative in detaining Polanski in the first place.

    Perfectly cooperative? How many years did they wait to take him in to custody? If they were being cooperative they’d have done it when he first arrived or any one of the many years that followed.

    And for the victim, do we know she forgave him or could she have moved on, grown, married with kids and not want to have to relive those terrible moments again. Rape victims are treated terribly in trials. The defense goes after them in such a horrible fashion that I can’t imagine anyone wanting to go through with it.

    Either way, what he did to that girl was beyond terrible.

  31. TaylorB says:


    So you think the US is wrong for wanting to bring a child raping, bail jumper to justice? That is an interesting spin on the situation, one I don’t personally agree with, but I guess we all have our opinions.

  32. Cheyenne says:

    Apparently the Swiss court called for documentation which the LA court failed to provide, and on that basis they refused the request for extradition.

    Is it due process or not? I don’t know. It looks to me like Polanski’s skating on a legal technicality.

    Bottom line: what’s to be done? All the screaming and yelling and hand-wringing and blaming and writing protest letters to the Swiss embassy isn’t going to change anything. The Swiss are not going to hand him over.

    But the fallout is going to be weird as hell. The teabaggers are already trying to make this an election issue. If Obama doesn’t take a tough stance against Switzerland on this, then the libs are soft on rape. No, I’m not making that up. You should see some of the stuff that’s being posted on HuffPo. Hilarious, except that those loonies are deadly serious.

  33. TQB says:

    To everyone suggesting the victim did not want to “press charges” – the victim most certainly DID want to, and cooperated fully back in 1977 when Polanski plead guilty. This is not an old case waiting to be tried, there is a verdict and a judgment that is waiting to be enforced. Polanski made a deal and then decided he didn’t like the outcome. That the victim has made peace with the situation now, 30+ years later, is irrelevant.

    I guess the procedural posture of the issue was omitted from mslewis’ quality news sites…

    BTW, the juxtaposition of this story with the one about Despicable Me is awesome.

  34. indigo says:

    FYI France doesn’t deport its citizens. It only deports non nationals.

  35. Obvious says:

    If the US didn’t provide documentation that was requested-then it’s their own damn fault he’s free. If they were serious about getting hum back here they would have bent over backwards to ensure it.

    The reason he hadn’t been arrested before in Switzerland they said was because they didn’t know for sure if he would be there-but they did this time and were able to arrest him with no problems.

    I do not agree with what he did, but i feel that the victim’s current wishes should be respected because she now has to face it all over again.

  36. Lin99 says:

    From what I have read and watched about the original trial and the corruption that the judge allowed to go on I can understand why Mr. Polanski took off. It was clear that under that particular judge he was not about to get a fair trial…the judge was disgraced by this case, and the poor victim had to live with testifying again and again.

    What he did was wrong and disgusting….and that girls mother served her up like a lamb to him….she was never prosecuted for child endangerment? She allowed her daughter to be alone with Polanksi while she got high and fooled around with someone else….that poor girl didn’t have a chance

    I wish he could be re-prosecuted in a court of law (I’m sure if he was brought back to the us his original trail would be torn to shreds by his lawyers…because it was a joke) for what he did to that girl….even if she says she has forgiven him. I doubt that at this point there is anyway for this man to get a fair trial, and I think that is also the feelings of the Swiss and French

  37. Once says:

    It would be nice if he willingly paid his due, i.e. jail time and made a public apology. That would be the right thing to do. You can’t run forever.

  38. Bill Hicks is God says:

    “The U.S. legal system is one of the best (if not, THE best) in the world.”

    Thanks for the laugh popcorny 😉

  39. flourpot says:


    Wake up… wake up… you’re dreaaaming.

    🙂 ( I agree, tho. Wouldn’t that be a joy.)

  40. Gail says:

    Sorry, but the fact is the victim and her feelings are no longer the issue. What happened to her was horrific and he should be punished for that, but it is still not the central issue. Not anymore.

    He agreed to abide by the dictates of the US legal system and then ran from its decision because he wasn’t pleased. Instead of abiding by the judgment, which was no where near as harsh as it should have been, he thumbed his rich arrogant nose at ALL OF US and proceeded to live a rich arrogant life. All the while he’s been bitching and moaning about how unfair it is that he should have to face the consequences of drugging and raping a girl.

    We’ve all been hollering for Lindsay Lohan’s blood because she won’t pull up her big girl panties and do her eensy little bit of time, but I don’t recall her being brought up on charges of forced sodomy with a child. Polanski does it and it’s supposed to be cool? Is it because he’s a rich, white, foreign, MAN that this shit is okay??

  41. Circe says:

    Blame the US justice department. They fucked up this case from the very beginning. If you want the Swiss to play along, ask nicely.

    Polanski is 76 and hasn’t touched underage girls since the seventies. With a bit of luck, he’s got one more movie left in him. So yeah, I’m not too bothered about this.

  42. jeannified says:

    I knew they wouldn’t extridite him…

  43. Gail says:

    Oh, my bad. He’s a so-called “artist”. God forbid we should miss out on another Rosemary’s Baby. (rolling eyes) What a friggin tragedy THAT would be.

  44. girl says:

    So the US didn’t provide information that was supposed to be confidential? That is why they are not extraditing? Maybe I am reading this wrong but that is pretty ballsy to ask to see something that is considered confidential that likely has no bearing on the outcome of the case (he was “lead to believe” that his psych hold would be the extent of his incarceration, how many contracts do you know of that are legally binding include bullet points that you are “lead to believe” and not plainly stated?).

    Disgusting but not shocking.

  45. MissyA says:

    Looks like Polanski got off on a technicality – albeit a well greased technicality.

    I’m sure money had everything to do with it. It often does in US court proceedings. (See what I did there?)

    File me under, “digusted, but not shocked”.

  46. Jeremy says:


  47. canadianchick says:

    Send him to Canada, a few women friends and I would be happy to introduce him to our knitting scissors.

  48. jane16 says:

    mslewis, your comment is ridiculous. You don’t know a damn thing about what other posters on this site are reading. The regulars on this site sound far more educated and intelligent than the absurd scenario you threw out. The Swiss are afraid of the US becuz of their bank accounts? Laughable. Like the US regularly does something about other countries injustices, perceived or not. This story is about a disgusting pervert who liked to rape young girls (the one this story is about isn’t the only one). You claim to have read about this “farce” on “news” sources. Maybe you should read the court testimony instead of whatever misogynist sites gave you this nutty idea.

    The fact that you are chortling over a child rapist getting off scot free and end your ludicrous & completely illogical post with a “HA!!” like this is some sort of victory for you, tells me that you have a very twisted way of looking at serious subjects. Also, your misogynistic viewpoint won’t make you popular around here. The posters on this site are very much pro-womens rights.

  49. jane16 says:

    Gail, well said!

    Moderator, can you please free my other post? Thanks!

  50. Kate says:

    Lock up your teenage daughters, France and Switzerland, lest they get anally raped by this troll.

  51. The Bobster says:

    The scumbag is a serial rapist, but his kind have a way of avoiding justice. Can you say Ira Einhorn?,0,4266929.story

  52. Big Whoop says:

    Wembley – What do they need, he admitted guilt, then ran before he could be incarcerated. All they need is the transcript of his confession.
    I am glad to see you condemning somebody who has been convicted of a crime for turn.
    This freak should be incarcerated in an actual jail cell for the duration of his sentence, somewhere, anywhere I don’t care if it is Switzerland, France, USA or Thailand but I hope he is kept with a friendly cell mate that is much bigger an stronger than him so he learns to understand what he did and why it was wrong.

  53. Julie says:

    Thank you to all the posters who know the difference between a civil case and a criminal case. There isn’t going to be a trial because Polanski already pleaded guilty thirty years ago! He left the country before he could serve his sentence. If I read one more person state that the victim does not want to press charges, I think I will scream. Please, please learn the difference between civil and criminal. This is CRIMINAL!!!!! Sorry to yell.

  54. Lady D says:

    Two words for “the legal system in the US is the best in the world,” Lindsey Lohan. That useless waste of oxygen has turned the best legal system in the world, into a joke.
    If it makes you feel any better the Canadian legal system is just as much of a sad, sorry joke. A drunk in Ontario mows down 4 grandma’s all over the age of 80, and the prick gets two years for it. Utterly sickening. The injustice of that sentence literally made me cry.

  55. Lin99 says:


  56. Lin99 says:

    He pled guilty, but the judge was swayed by many outside sources (the original plea deal was a joke) and has been shown to be corrupt… concern is that even if he did return and recieved his sentence his high priced lawyers would find many indiscretions commited by his trial judge….Who knows how long he’d be appealing and I’m sure he would eventually walk away with a slap on the whrist anyways….

  57. XYZ says:

    Once a scum, always a scum.

  58. Cheyenne says:

    Can we lower the outrage level a notch? Helpless fuming isn’t doing anyone any good.

    There is this thing called SOVEREIGNTY. Which means that one country doesn’t have to answer to any other country. The Swiss court does not have to answer to the City of Los Angeles, the State of California or the United States of America. If they rule Polanski will not be extradited, he will not be extradited, and however little we may like it, there is nothing we can do about it.

    Boycott Swiss products if it will make you feel better, but I can guarantee you it will not affect this ruling. Polanski walked.

  59. girl says:

    I don’t understand the idea that we shouldn’t be outraged by a rapist getting a walk. It happens in this country ALL THE TIME. (And no I do NOT think that our system is the absolute best in the world.)

    He drugged, raped, and sodomized a child. It isn’t a matter of the Swiss “answering” to the U.S. It is a matter of a criminal being returned to a country that he fled from before he was sentenced. It shouldn’t matter what country it was.

  60. Kim says:

    May this child rapist rot!

  61. Kim says:

    All the people saying forget about it because even the victim wants to forget about it – NO DUH!!!! This was devastating for her and she doesnt want to live thru it or have attention brought upon her again. She wants to move on. This does not mean what he did WASNT illegal & sadistic! He is pedophile scum who is not a man! A man would serve his time & not run away like the sick twisted imbicile he is.

  62. Kim says:

    Circe – I pray you dont have a teenage daughter feeling the way you feel.

  63. GatsbyGal says:

    1. Rape a 13 year old girl
    2. Flee the country
    3. Make a bunch of movies that people like
    4. ???????
    5. PROFIT!

  64. Jane says:

    Wait, let me get this straight. The US asked an ally for something and that ally said NO?! By all means, let’s blow the Swiss off the map.

  65. Ruffian9 says:

    Circe: A child rapist not answering for his crime doesn’t bother you?…I shudder to think what actually would….

  66. jane16 says:

    A couple of people suggested to “boycott” Switzerland, not bomb them.

  67. Mrs Odie 2 says:

    Polanski pled guilty to a lesser crime and then fled the country instead of serving his sentence. There is no amount of time that can go by. He needs to serve the time. He fled! This isn’t about a trial. That’s all done. Whether or not the victim forgives him is irrelevant. He pled guilty to a crime and then ran away to avoid going to jail. I don’t care how good his stupid movies are.

    Polanski hasn’t been CAUGHT touching an underaged girl since the 70s. Pedos never lose their taste for it, 76 or not. I wouldn’t leave my daughter alone with him. I don’t believe in hell, so I think he needs to rot in JAIL. At the very least serve the 90 days he agreed to.

    And those who defend him are child rape apologists. And/or you think that if enough time goes by, then a crime doesn’t matter anymore. Let’s not go after war criminals then. Forgive and forget. Genocide. Murder, rape. It’s all in the PAST.

  68. Gail says:

    I just get so sick of these people who want to sound edgy and enlightened by being on his side. What they keep saying is it’s okay with them that he raped her.

    It’s okay that he raped her because she was 15? 16?

    It’s okay that he raped her because she wasn’t a virgin.

    It’s okay that he raped her because her mom wanted her to turn that trick.

    It’s okay that he raped her because she wants to forget about it and continue to move on with her life.

    It’s okay that he raped her because it was a long time ago.

    It’s okay that he raped her because he made some half-assed movies.

    It’s okay that he raped her because he’s old now.

    It’s okay that he raped her because his wife was murdered.

    I call BULLSHIT. It is never okay for anyone to rape anyone, do you people get that? It is that simple. It is NOT okay. I don’t care who the person is, rape is not okay. If he were like a mechanic nobody would give a shit, but because he makes films of questionable quality and calls himself an artist it’s cool?

  69. onyx says:

    what do you expect from a judge whose last name is SMURF????

  70. trashaddict says:

    Boycott: swiss watches, swiss chocolate, whatever.
    If you have any copies of “Chinatown”, consider partially burning them and mailing them to whatever Polanski’s current address is. Let some karma come back.

  71. Cheyenne says:

    Actually, Switzerland isn’t an ally of any country; they’re politically neutral. But they have always been on good terms with most Western nations.

    Rather than blame Switzerland, I would hold the Los Angeles DA’s office responsible for Polanski walking free. Switzerland asked them for some documentation which they never provided. This is pretty consistent with what a friend of mine in law enforcement in another state told me about the Los Angeles DA: they are hell to work with, extremely uncooperative, and when you request information from them, a lot of times they don’t even bother with a response.

  72. Circe says:

    Ruffian 9: considering all the cirumstances, it doesn’t bother me anymore. He’s not a recidivist. The victim doesn’t want him prosecuted. The US justice department had 33 years and two attempts to get this shoe-in of a case solved, convicted and Polanski sent to prison, and the failed twice. He got away with it, sure, but he’s no longer a threat to society. I say, know when to let go.

    What does bother me, however, is the US trying to bully the Swiss into cooperating. They were the ones who broke the terms of agreement. Thankfully the Swiss won’t let themselves be bullied so easily.

  73. starfish says:

    Well I am Swiss and it would be good for some of you to read the Swiss press.. It was never about if he’s guilty or not, but even my country has laws to follow…

  74. Sara says:

    This is depressing.

    America should start harboring French and Swiss criminals and see how they like it!

  75. Cheyenne says:

    Gail, you’re being ridiculous. Nobody said it was okay for Polanski to rape anybody, let alone an underage girl. But Switzerland is a sovereign nation and they are not bound to jump whenever we say jump. They had some serious questions about the conduct of the judge in the original case and requested documentation that the Los Angeles DA’s office did not provide. Maybe if the DA’s office had cooperated, Polanski would be on his way back to the US by now.

  76. Raven says:

    Excellent post, Ms. Lewis. This seemed like grandstanding on the part of the LA District Atty’s office. It’s likely the evidence the Swiss demanded would have supported Polanski’s position on sentencing so the DA’s office wouldn’t provide it.

  77. Raven says:

    This is the deal. When Polanski was convicted both sides agreed to send him to a psychiatric facility for 45 days with the understanding that he would likely be set free after that, unless the doctors found something insidious. The judge, who had signed off on this, began to get bad reaction which may have been affecting his political future. So rather than sticking with his agreement, he asked that Polanski be re-committed for 45 days. Polanski got word through someone in the judge’s office or the DA’s office that what was really going to happen was the judge was going to get him into the institution and then send him straight to jail. This violated the terms of a legal agreement. When Polaski got word that the judge was going to be doing this, he fled the country.

    The issues now are technical and have little to do with the original crime.

  78. Cheyenne says:

    Raven is correct. If the DA’s office had given the Swiss court the documentation they requested, Polanski almost certainly would have walked anyway. The documentation would have proven that:

    1) Polanski had already been sentenced, and

    2) He was sentenced to less than two years.

    Since the Swiss require a minimum of two years sentence to extradite anyone, they would not have extradited Polanski. Same result.

  79. Stella says:

    To the idiots stating Polanski never touched an under aged girl after the seventies:

    Add Natasha Kinski and there’s a definite pattern.

  80. Gail says:

    Thank you Stella. I thought of that too but I am just so tired of having this argument. Thank you for keeping up the good fight.