Roman Polanski wants his rape case dismissed so he can film a movie


This must be the month in which rich, entitled celebrity dudes seek to delete their criminal pasts with a quick swipe of an eraser. We’ve only just spoken of how Mark Wahlberg seeks a pardon for his racially motivated assaults of yesteryear. Now Roman Polanski’s getting in on the act, which is convenient in a year that’s seen the Bill Cosby and Woody Allen scandals take on new life.

Polanski feels he deserves special treatment for a crime that happened decades ago. To recap, Polanski was charged in 1978 for raping Samantha Geimer. He knew she was underage. He drugged her. He did terrible things to her. Then he was surprised to be convicted. He struck a plea deal to accept guilt (for one of five charges). Before sentencing, Polanski hopped on a plane to France. In 2010, the US almost pulled him back to the States, but the Swiss refused to extradite him.

Polanski’s been living the high life, but he’s very downtrodden. Poor thing. His life won’t be complete until he films a movie in Poland, and he wants the US to close his case so he can do so without fear of extradition:

Alan M. Dershowitz is seeking to lead what could be the final effort to end the legal case against the film director Roman Polanski, who fled the United States before final sentencing on a statutory rape charge in 1978. In connection with a Los Angeles County Superior Court filing on Monday, Mr. Dershowitz is asking permission to represent Mr. Polanski in California.

The filing charged prosecutors with providing false information to support a recent attempt to have Mr. Polanski extradited from Poland. It also demanded a hearing aimed at closing his case, based partly on fresh testimony that a Superior Court judge, in 2009, had unethically prejudged issues related to Mr. Polanski’s prosecution, and had a secret plan to jail him at least briefly, even while limiting his actual sentence to time served.

In October, the authorities in Poland questioned Mr. Polanski, who had been living in France, but declined to detain him following a request from the United States for his extradition when he was photographed at the opening of the Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw. In 2010, Swiss officials ultimately ruled against extradition after detaining Mr. Polanski for more than nine months on a similar request.

The request by Mr. Dershowitz to represent Mr. Polanski opened what promises to be a broad legal and public-relations effort to lift the threat of extradition and jail time from Mr. Polanski, now 81. He was first charged with raping a 13-year-old girl, who has since identified herself as Samantha Geimer, in 1977.

Mr. Polanski was imprisoned for psychiatric evaluation under a plea agreement, but he fled before sentencing when he learned that Judge Laurence J. Rittenband, now dead, intended to impose additional jail time. He and his lawyers have since argued that Los Angeles prosecutors and judges repeatedly violated his rights, and that his sentence has been fully served. But officials have insisted that he must return before those claims can be heard.

Mr. Polanski, a Holocaust survivor who was born in Poland, has said he would return there to shoot a film about an Alsatian Jew, Alfred Dreyfus, who in the late 19th century was accused of passing military secrets to Germany. The Dreyfus case, which ended in his exoneration, raised debate about anti-Semitism and prosecutorial misconduct.

But to shoot in Poland, Mr. Polanski and his backers have said, would require assurance by the Polish authorities that he would not be subject to extradition.

[From Hollywood Reporter]

There’s a bunch of blah-blah legal talk in the filing, which implies how the original judge was considering reducing Polanski’s sentence to “time served,” but that didn’t happen. Why? Because Polanski skipped out on his punishment. So the original penalty and sentence still applies.

Dershowitz argues that Polanski was “falsely characterized” as a “continuing flight risk,” which … I don’t see what’s so false about that characterization. Polanski got on a plane and left the country. It’s really that simple. He didn’t feel like serving whatever sentence the judge handed out. He thought he did nothing wrong. He thought he was above the law. But he wants to make a little movie, so we should stop bringing the man down? Bitch, please.


Photos courtesy of WENN

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

124 Responses to “Roman Polanski wants his rape case dismissed so he can film a movie”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. NewWester says:

    Who does Roman have in mind to star in this movie? Bill Cosby?

  2. Lindy79 says:

    I’m pretty sure he’s the walking definition of the term “flight risk”

    • Lucy2 says:

      And has been for nearly 40 years.

    • Godwina says:

      Seriously. Dictionary, photo, etc.

    • Ally8 says:

      It’s beyond risk. He actually fled.

      He is vile and so are his defenders.

    • CTgirl says:

      He’s an entitled flight risk – in his strange little mind he thinks that his movie is more important than his debt to society. What an ass.

    • Kori says:

      Plus for the last 40 years his home has been in France. His wife, children, house, etc–all in France. There aren’t any significant ties to the US to keep him from fleeing (again) first chance he got.

  3. Sarah says:

    I hate him

  4. AlexandraJane says:

    He could ask Whoopi to help champion his cause…

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Oh, she will.

    • philae says:

      joined by Tilda Swinton and all the others who signed a petition in defence of the man years ago.

      • tifzlan says:

        Serious question: who in Hollywood did NOT sign that petition? I’d love to know.

      • philae says:

        you can find the list here

        It’d be interesting to ask them if they changed their mind in the meanwhile.

      • Brittney B says:

        @philae — I know at least one person did: Emma Thompson. Which filled me with relief because I reeeeally didn’t want to have to write her off. She was asked to sit down with a female victim of sexual assault, and she came out of the meeting terribly embarrassed and immediately recanted her support.

        We need to see so, so, SO much more of that.

      • Veronica says:

        @philae – It is seriously soul-crushing just how many celebrities I liked signed that. I completely forgot del Toro was one of his defenders. I guess I won’t be seeing any of his newer films. :-/

      • @Brittney B
        I remember that–she said she only signed it when a friend of hers called her, and told her like half of a story, and she had been leaving or something, and so she just said sure okay. Years later, her fans found out (or something like that), and there was a huge backlash, and she finally heard the whole story, and took her name off of the list.

        And I believe her in this story, because when I heard about Roman Polanski and rape, I read it was because he had consensual sex with a 14 year old girl–as in he did not drug or beat her. It was years before I read that he had drugged her and did other horrible things to her.

      • philae says:

        As I said it’d be interesting to know how many of them feel the same way 5 years later, how many did like Thompson and just signed it without knowing the details, and later found out it was a terrible mistake.

      • MinnFinn says:

        philae – Thanks for the link. I had forgotten that letter said the 1978 arrest warrant was about a “case or morals”. Anyone who signed that letter is delusional if they really believe it wasn’t rape. And, most of the signers I should think would view it as a rape if it had happened to their own 13 year old child.

    • doofus says:

      she already has.

      she said what he did wasn’t “rape rape”, whatever the hell that means.

      I frankly am not getting my hopes up for jail time, but what I REALLY would like to see is other movie folks shun him. it DISGUSTS me that people (looking at you Depp, Portman, etc.) think he didn’t do anything wrong.

      ETA: he’s not just a rapist; he has a penchant for teen girls, too…didn’t he date a couple of actresses when they were 15-16 and he was much older? Natasia Kinski and one of the Hemingway girls?

      • Brittney B says:

        Wait, she said that about Polanski?!?! If grooming, drugging and sodomizing a 13-year-old isn’t “RAPE rape” in your book, what the hell is?!?!

        But I do have a bone to pick with your comment that “he’s not just a rapist; he has a penchant for teen girls, too” … if a grown man is having sex with a 15-year-old girl, he’s a RAPIST. I don’t care if the girl *thinks* she’s consenting; that’s rape, legally and psychologically.

      • doofus says:

        ok, let’s chill…

        I only meant that he ALSO likes to “date” teen girls besides drug/rape them. yes, it’s legally statutory rape, but it’s not the same as drugging a woman and forcibly sodomizing her.

    • Kori says:

      Didn’t she? I think he was the subject of her ‘rape rape’ comment

  5. Janet says:

    The guy’s a pig. But when serving the interests of justice collides with serving the interests of the victim, I’m torn. Samantha Geimer is now almost 50 years old and she has repeatedly said she does not want this case prosecuted. Should her wishes be respected? I don’t know.

    • Mainstay says:

      He’s brainwashed her with money and his life’s sob stories. She even feels sorry for HIM!! Another master manipulator at work.

      • noway says:

        I don’t think that is fair. I think at 50 you don’t want to keep hearing and possibly reliving in the press your traumatic rape experience. I can understand her desire to have the whole thing go away. Samantha to me is the only reason this should be let go. Not sure it should be, but I think her concerns should be considered. I also understand her need to come to some kind of closure with her attacker. I applaud her for that she did what she did to survive and thrive. Good for her!!!!

      • Mainstay says:

        @noway. I get where you’re coming from. She’s been saying for decades she wants it to go away and move on. That’s understandable. But in interviews for her book she repeatedly showed twisted sympathy forwards the rapist, not forgiveness (a sign of his manipulating her). Many people, myself included, wanted her to stfu because she was such a poor advocate for victims.

        Anyway, it isn’t in her hands. The prosecution will file charges against Roman for fleeing no matter what she wants.

        This case is bigger than this one victim. I do feel for her but justice must be served.

      • noway says:

        I guess it bothers me how a lot of people lose site of the victim. She was the one who was raped. Just because she hasn’t behaved the way anyone thinks she should in these many years I think is very unfair, and it is another form of victim bashing. How are we going to insure that other people come out in time to prosecute these people if people are saying in high profile cases that victims are being brainwashed and are a poor advocates for victims. My guess from working with victims is she really doesn’t want to be thought of as a victim and her speaking out publicly is her forum to let it go. Others would probably talk to friends, but hers is so public she is writing it out there. This is a truly dangerous message to send out there and does little for victims and changing the climate.

      • Brittney B says:


        If that’s truly what you believe, I recommend you read Samantha’s book. She’s gotten NOTHING from him, not even a public apology. She has completely different reasons for wanting this to go away.

        And she herself agrees that the case was handled badly. We all have focused on his fleeing for so long, but that’s not the worst part, and she doesn’t even blame him for that one. The prosecutors kept making promises and going back on them, to both her and him. She was glad when he fled because it meant it was over.

        “Poor advocate for rape victims” is treading dangerous waters, too. There’s no perfect rape victim. I get what you mean about setting a bad precedent for other women, but that’s like calling Janay Rice and Rihanna “poor examples” of domestic violence victims. Actually, they’re textbook examples. MOST victims feel some misplaced sympathy for their assailants, simply because of the way they’re groomed and the way society views these crimes. We shouldn’t pretend that isn’t the case; we should confront it head-on.

      • oldhen says:

        mainstay. dont bother reading samanthas book. i have and found her story sad and tragic but not helpful on any level imo. she is a traumatized person who as you say makes a poor advocate in interviews. some women do forgive their attackers. samantha believes roman has been punished enough. thats not the same thing.
        samantha didnt receive money from the civil lawsuit tho the distract attorney has said publicly that he would like to know what private payment or apology she may have gotten without disclosure. you may be right about the manipulation of this woman.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Does the rape case itself need to be prosecuted? I thought he was found guilty. Don’t they just need to determine the jail time? I don’t know, I’m just asking. If so, I think he should have to serve time for both the rape and fleeing the country. To dismiss it would be really offensive to rape victims. Walking around free in another country is not “punishment ,” imo.

      • noway says:

        My understanding is he had a plea to some form of sexual misconduct, sorry not sure what the legal term they used but he didn’t plead to rape. The judge was going to sentence him to a more lenient sentence, but somehow Roman got wind that he was going to make it a longer then he ran. So I think you are right there would not be a trial, other than the fleeing.

        I like how they said he wasn’t a flight risk now!!! Seriously, they can say that with a straight face.

      • MinnFinn says:

        The rape and other charges do not need to be prosecuted. LA Times says his 1977 plea bargain deal still stands. He plead guilty to a lesser charge than rape i.e. guilty of unlawful intercourse.

        Yes, he was never sentenced to jail time because he skipped town right before his sentencing hearing.

        I agree with you. He should have to serve all the sentenced jail time plus added punitive damages for fleeing justice.

      • noway says:

        MinnFinn is there really a legal charge of “unlawful intercourse.” Who makes this crap up!!! Maybe we need to simplify the sexual assault charges to just a few and not a battery of definitions. I understand to some extent when people are beaten how the rapist should be punished more, but can’t that be rape and battery and not all these crazy definitions.

      • Tippy says:

        I think the original plea bargain called for approximately 18 months.

        I doubt that the judge would have been inclined to reduce such a light sentence but rather impose a harsher, perhaps much harsher, prison sentence.

        There’s a huge difference between spending 18 months in a minimum security facility and possibly 5 years in San Quentin.

        Polanski probably had the best legal representation that money could buy and the information he received regarding the judge’s sentencing intentions was most likely accurate.

      • MinnFinn says:

        noway 8:41 – I really was quoting the LA Times. Here is that article and below the full paragraph about “unlawful intercourse”.

        “The “Rosemary’s Baby” and “Chinatown” director agreed to a plea deal, something prosecutors wanted in order to save the victim from testifying at trial. The terms of the deal called for Polanski to plead guilty to unlawful intercourse with a minor and for Judge Laurence Rittenband to determine the sentence.”

      • noway says:

        If Unlawful Intercourse with a Minor is an actual legal definition in CA. I am seriously disgusted, and we really need to change the legal degrees and definitions of sexual assault charges.

    • Veronica says:

      I can understand her personal desire not to rehash a traumatic experience so many years later. What I don’t agree with her insistence that he shouldn’t be tried. As with most assault cases, it’s highly unlikely she is his only victim.

      • Godwina says:

        THIS. This is why justice is a communal phenom.

      • Brittney B says:

        She doesn’t want him to be tried because it would drag her through everything all over again. She said herself that the public trials and leaked information was almost as traumatic as the rape itself. She was treated horribly by everyone except her own attorney, and she still has PTSD… not just because of the rape, but because of the experience of recounting every detail, over and over again, to people who turned around and blamed her or blamed her mother.

      • Veronica says:

        I understand that, Brittney. My point is that the social impact of pardoning a rapist is bigger than the individual.

      • The Other Katherine says:

        A plea was already entered and accepted by the court, was it not? He wouldn’t be tried on the rape, he would be subject to a sentencing hearing. He might face new charges stemming from his evasion of arrest all those years ago, but the charges related to the rape have already been settled by plea bargain (which is how most cases in the U.S. criminal justice system are settled).

      • Veronica says:

        @ The Other Katherine

        You’re right – I misstated the situation in my original comment. I absolutely sympathize with the victim and why she wants it dropped, but the idea of pardoning his evasion of law doesn’t sit with me well from a societal perspective. It feels more like it would be yet another step backwards for a justice system that already routinely fails sexual assault victims. The man obviously has no remorse for what he’s done, so why pardon him for it?

      • ch2 says:

        I’m sorry but you can’t just pardon a rapist because the victim doesn’t want a prosecution. that’s just setting up other people to get raped. A crime is a crime…. end of story. Let’s not complicate the issue.

      • The Other Katherine says:

        I quite agree that Polanski should not be pardoned. He admitted his crime, but chose not to accept the consequences thereof. He was not persecuted, he was not the victim of biased prosecutions, etc.

        I do have a fair amount of pity for Polanski because of the horrific murder of his heavily pregnant wife, Sharon Tate. However, that doesn’t excuse his own bad actions, and my pity is diminished every time he talks about how his rape conviction makes HIS life difficult. Don’t want to be a convicted rapist? The first and most important step is to NOT RAPE PEOPLE.

    • Nerdmomma says:

      I think he should continue to be considered the predator and flight risk that he is, but his victim’s name should no longer be brought up and she should be left alone. She doesn’t need to testify anymore- that’s done. It’s the job of DAs to prosecute rapists, not their victims.

      • M says:

        +100. why do people keep feeling the need to bring up the victim and bother her (the media)? He took a plea bargain! He plead guilty, took a plea with his attorney’s advice & then skipped town. The victim should have been done at that point (no testifying or explaining needed anymore). HE plead guilty! This case drives me nuts.

    • MinnFinn says:

      You make a good point. But I don’t want victims to influence whether or not someone is prosecuted because a victim will not be able to be impartial toward their perpetrator. And also because societal justice still needs to be served. Our justice system serves two entities– the victim and society. Polanski’s crimes were committed against Samantha the individual and against our society. So even though Samantha feels justice was served, our rule of law says justice has not yet been served on behalf of society.

      • Janet says:

        She never said she felt justice has been served. She said she didn’t want this dragged up all over again after so many years. She just wants to have done with it and move on.

      • MinnFinn says:

        Janet – She said “He made a terrible mistake but he’s paid for it.” 2003 interview for the Honolulu Times.

    • idsmith says:

      The man is a rapist who has never been made to pay the price. The victim’s feelings really have nothing to do with it.

    • lunchcoma says:

      I don’t think anyone’s currently trying to prosecute the case. I can certainly understand her desire not to have to testify, but that doesn’t mean we can’t leave things as they currently are, with Polanski living in Europe and having to deal with the terrible burden of some travel restrictions.

    • M says:

      No one needs to prosecute the case. He took a plea bargain & plead guilty already. The case is done- he just doesn’t want to serve his time.

  6. Maria says:

    And I want rapists to serve jail time but alas that rarely happens.

    • M says:

      The stats are really disheartening. And, when a rapist does actually get prosecuted they usually plea down to some crap that is so minimal compared to the crime they committed. Polanski plead guilty to “unlawful sex” not drugging & raping a 13-yr-old. He should feel lucky he only got a max of 18 months after what he did.

  7. Mainstay says:

    When he’s DEAD the case will be closed. Roman can look forward to that 🙂

  8. ellesbelles says:

    Roman, I know it must be soooo inconvenient that these pesky charges have followed you around preventing you from being great.

    You know what else is inconvenient? Carrying around residual damage from being a victim so many years ago. Yet I carry on.

    Cry me a river, bitch. And.go to hell

  9. scout says:

    Of course he wishes!! I bet he feels he is a victim too! 😀

    • Dani2 says:

      Oh yeah, absolutely, people like this are amazing at convincing themselves that they are somehow guiltless.

  10. heylee says:

    Dismissal would send the wrong message about child rape. I honestly don’t care about his old age or her requests for dismissal.

    I read the deposition and this man is a disgusting child rapist. He groomed her, he drugged her, he raped her. Because he evaded justice for so long he should be rewarded? No.

  11. MrsBPitt says:

    Oh, by all means, stop picking on the poor, child rapist! After all, the girl was all of, thirteen years old when he drugged and raped her. Surely, old enough to have sex with a disgusting, self-entitled, self-important pig. At thirteen, I still played with my Barbie dolls!!! If they let this animal get away with this, it is spitting in the face of all rape victims!!!!!

  12. Lucy2 says:

    I don’t think you should be able to flee prison, hide in Europe for a few decades, and then be like “let’s call it even”. Either stay put or finally come serve time- his choice.
    I feel bad for his victim that this gets dredged up every so often, but that’s his doing, and the legal matters are beyond what she wants now.

    • Veronica says:

      The question always on my mind – how can we ever know Samantha Reimer was the only victim? How many girls has he raped before her? How many after?

      • minxx says:

        Do you have ANY proof to back this up or you’re just making it up as you go?

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        It is well known and well documented that rapists and pedophiles repeat their crimes as often as they “need” to. Neither is something you do just once. It’s a sickness. I think that is all Veronica is saying – we can assume with a reasonable certainty that there were other victims. Sorry to disrupt your rapist sympathies and all.

      • MinnFinn says:

        GoodNames – Around the time the Catholic sex abuse scandal came out, a professor who studies pedophiles (IIRC she was Univ of WI, Madison) was an NPR guest. Her data analysis indicated less than 10% of pedophiles are ever caught. And by the time they were caught, they had already committed an average of 90+ molestation acts.

      • lucy2 says:

        Quite possible she was not his only victim. And given the enduring publicity surrounding the case and the disgusting support the guy has gotten simply because he’s a famous director, I can understand why no one else would want to come forward.

      • Veronica says:

        @minxx –

        There are several studies that have been done that have shown rapists are repeat offenders by nature. For them, the drive to abuse is as natural as consensual sex is for the rest of us. It isn’t just likely Samantha Reiman was his only a victim – it’s practically a statistical guarantee.

  13. Izzy says:

    O RLY? Ok, well, if by some chance they’re stupid enough to let this happen, one of the conditions needs to be that he is a registered sex offender in EVERY jurisdiction in the U.S. and its territories. Have fun with THAT, Roman. The second he violates any term of that agreement, they can throw his worthless ass in jail like he deserved in the first place.

  14. Godwina says:

    I’m a huge HUGE HUUUUUUGE fan of his early work, but the man needs to see the inside of a prison. Properly. It’s that bloody simple.

    • minxx says:

      He actually did. Please do some research before you get on your high moral horse.

      • Dani2 says:

        Oh did he? The poor thing 🙁 That makes everything alright then. Right?

      • H says:

        You must have a pretty low moral bar if you consider disgust at Polanski’s actions and his lack of remorse and refusal to take responsibility for his crimes to be a “high horse”.

      • FingerBinger says:

        He was in prison a little over a month for drugging and raping a 13 year old.

      • Gretchen says:

        @Minxx Yeah, a whopping 42 days in prison for raping a child. Pulease, high horses are easy to find when speaking of Polanski.

      • M says:

        I’m not one for getting on a moral high horse in general but when it comes to a man who (himself) admitted to raping a child it’s quite easy. We should ride our horses damn high and run him over in the meantime.

    • doofus says:

      Godwina, trolls gonna troll.

      don’t feed it.

  15. Ariel says:

    I have to say I was swayed by the documentary. When both the defense counsel AND the prosecutor concur, and say the judge went back on the agreed upon deal and did some shady shit, it’s pretty convincing. Also I have respect for the victim’s position.

    But, yes, none of that changes that he drugged and raped a 13year old girl.

    The documentary is called Wanted and Desired.

    • FingerBinger says:

      Judges can do that. A judge doesn’t have to honor a deal made between the prosecution and the defense.

    • LNG says:

      Yeah, judges are never obligated to uphold agreements reached by counsel. Counsel make a joint sentencing recommendation, but the judge has ultimate authority over the sentence imposed. If the judge imposes an “unfair” sentence, then you get to appeal, not run away to another country and claim to be a victim.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:


        And I am “swayed” by the fact that he drugged and anally raped a 13 year old child, ignoring her cries for her mother. She couldn’t run away as he did.

    • M says:

      Rapists (when rarely prosecuted) frequently take deals for much less then crimes then they committed. It’s common for serial rapists to plea to “attempted” this & this to avoid trial and get some bs light sentence. So I do think judges should have another set on eyes on things & flexibility to provide an appropriate sentence (which was only 18 months in RP’s case so he can cry me a river). I think it’s sick he got as little time as he did so the fact he ran from it gives me 0 sympathy for him or the other players even if had struck some sweet deal. They made the shady deal and the judge called it. I also think the “documentary” is extremely biased.

  16. poppy says:

    look who is still victimizing his victim.

    he could have ended this a long long time ago.
    he deserves no special privileges and no mercy, all of which he had originally.

    he is VILE.

    • M says:

      Yep- people talk about what she went through with the media, etc. If he had just done his effing time maybe she could have moved on easier. By fleeing & not doing his time he really is revictimizing her.

      • Trashaddict says:

        This 1000+ Do the crime , do the time. If they let him off of this, it will be open season on 13 year olds everywhere. STOP THIS SH-T. IT MAKES ME SO ANGRY.

  17. H says:

    It’s a very bad time for rapists to seek absolution in America, for once. This is going to create a huge backlash and I’m looking forward to it.

    • Miss Jupitero says:

      Jesus I hope so. If I have to look at another celebrity petition on this topic, I will hurl. Tilda Swinton, I do not forgive you.

  18. Ginger says:

    If he got what he really deserved then he’d go to Poland, get extradited where he would become someone’s special biatch in prison for the rest of his miserable existence.

  19. Alex says:

    I literally cannot. If he wasn’t a rich, white film director people wouldn’t even be feeling sorry for him. Same with Woody Allen. Same with Mark Walberg. David O Russell. Stephen Collins. Bill Cosby. Its maddening how different the rules are for certain groups in this country. Hollywood will actually look the other way because these people make good movies. Its quite disgusting…there’s no other words for it.

  20. Pamela says:

    A few thoughts…

    1. I like that pic of him in the coffin above. That is where he belongs.
    2. This child rapist ran off to avoid punishment. Despite being “on the run”, he was able to continue making films and making money. I enjoy my job, but it is an office job, it isn’t a labor of love. This guy has been living the god damn dream all these years. Think of how few people are able to achieve that level of success at something they LOVE. And now he wants to make a movie in Poland and he can’t because that pesky drugging of a 13 year old girl and anally raping her keeps coming back to haunt him. Poor guy, right?

    I am stunned that we live in a world where a person could be sooooooooooo entitled. We see plenty of it every day, but this takes the god damn cake.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Completely agree.

    • siri says:

      Yes. And it’s that arrogant “It’s me, the artist” that makes me furious. How can other actors/directors make a difference between Polanski as a person, and him as an artist. It’s the same f…ing person! I don’t care how talented that guy is-he raped a girl! There are plenty of talents around- support one of those! They are backing up each other, which makes it even more despicable.

  21. Lori says:

    I don’t think much of Marky Mark but at least he served a bit of time.

  22. elle says:

    Another creep that didn’t pay for his crimes. Did he not marry an extremely young actress after he ran from the States? What I really fail to understand are all of the actors and the film industry who still support him.

  23. ToodySezHey says:

    Damn you Mark Wahlberg, see the bs you started? ?

  24. Joy says:

    I would pay to see Dog and Beth–the Roman Polaski Edition.

  25. JenniferJustice says:

    I’m sure he does want his rape case dismissed. Of course he does. Duhhhh…….

  26. Jaded says:

    He may succeed in getting the rape case dismissed but he’ll never get it expunged from his soul. There is a special place in hell with his name on it waiting for him.

  27. HK9 says:

    My neck hurts from shaking my head. The only thing I can say that won’t turn into a full fledged rant is, I think that coffin is a good look on him. He should stay there.

  28. Irene says:

    Why do these jerks think that they should be forgiven for heinous crimes they’ve shown no remorse for simply because they want to make more money?

  29. Winnie says:

    I wonder if Sharon Tate was still alive, if they would have still been together or what she would think of him. I hope she would be sickened. She always struck me as a nice person.

  30. gooner says:

    Oh yes, lest we forget the TRUE victim in all this… poor Roman. Ugh.

  31. Jinx says:

    Wait… I don’t get it. Why doesn’t he just come back to the US and do his time? It’s not like he was sentenced to death! Roman, get it over with so we can stop hearing you whine!

    • nic says:

      Exactly Jinx, he should do the time and get it over with. And I agree with the victim that he has already been punished enough.
      I believe that he would be willing to do time, but not the fifteen years that obsessed prosecutor wants him to do. The problem is the system. Cosby can commit multiple deliberate acts of violence and never be prosecuted because of the statute of limitations – Polanski has a massive sentence hanging over his head for one horrible act. It can be absolutely understood, without being condoned, in the context of the ultimate horror perpetrated against him by Manson and Hitler. People here are saying he belongs in hell, I say he has already experienced hell. And I do not condone his crime.

  32. weegiewarrior says:

    Ill never understand how celebrities can get away with th most appalling crimes. Thats all ive got.

  33. Pandy says:

    Jail him. He’s not even relevant anymore lol.

  34. Mrs. Ari Gold says:

    I bet he’s going to be compared to Bill Cosby in the media so this was unwise timing on his part. Hopefully it means the drugging part of his assault on the 13 year old girl will become more widely known.

    I don’t think he’s ever going to be pardoned. It’s great to see that in only a few years since people signed that petition there is increased public awareness, and less tolerance of rapists. I don’t think most of those people would have signed it now. This is in part due to the bravery of women coming forward, like those in the Cosby case.

  35. ickythump says:

    Cosby’s another one who should be brought to justice.

  36. Mina says:

    Not very familiar with this case, but I have read a shorten bio about Polansky some time ago and it was written that the victim later began to defend him and still does. That is interesting.

  37. LAK says:

    Yep, B1tch please!!!