Roman Polanski denied bail

"Brüno" Paris Premiere

I love the Swiss. Up until now my feelings for them had been mostly neutral (ha). But now I have a special fondness for them, and their complete refusal to fall for any of Roman Polanski’s bullsh*t. And his lawyers have tried to pull so much stuff, I can’t help but think they might have had some success in another country. But today the Swiss made it clear they’re not letting Polanski out of jail for any reason, and they know exactly what he’s up to. He was officially denied bail, though he does have 10 days to appeal.

That’s strike two. For the second time since his controversial bust last month, a Swiss court has denied director Roman Polanski bail, deeming the 76-year-old auteur a high flight risk and ruling that he will remain in jail ahead of his possible extradition to the United States. In handing down her trilingual ruling, Swiss Federal Criminal Court Judge Cornelia Cova this morning also rejected any number of alternative proposals from Polanski’s team, among them allowing the director to post bail or be placed under house arrest at his chalet in Gstaad.

You know what they say: Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the luxury resort-accommodated time… “The court considered the risk that Roman Polanski might flee if released from custody as high,” the ruling read. Typical measures, such as revoking his passport and requiring him to report daily to police, were not strong enough guarantees he would stay put, per the court, particularly as the well-connected Polanski potentially has any number of private jets or helicopters at his disposal.

Handing in his travel documents would also not stymie him for long as his dual citizenship in both France and Poland would make it easier to obtain a second, new set. “The detention of the accused during the entire extradition proceedings is the rule. This allows Switzerland to meet the obligations of its extradition treaties.” What’s a guy got to do to get a jail break? Other than fall mysteriously ill, or, you know, not have sex with a 13-year-old in the first place.

Polanski has 10 days to appeal the ruling to the Swiss Supreme Court or to the Swiss Justice Ministry, which also has the power to step in and free him. The United States, meanwhile, has until Nov. 25 to formalize its extradition request.

[From E! News]

It sucks when you can’t chill in your chalet instead of your jail cell. I love the way the judge saw through each and every argument. Most of the time judges do, but they sometimes will grant requests based on technicalities. But in this case, you can just tell there’s nothing Polanski’s lawyers could have said that would get him home. The guy would run, it’s that simple. I don’t know the future but I’m not a dumbass.

Enjoy Swiss jail while you can, Polanski. It’ll seem like a chalet compared to American jail.

Bruno premieres in Paris

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

30 Responses to “Roman Polanski denied bail”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Praise St. Angie! says:

    loved the “neutral” comment…but ‘fess up…didn’t you at least love their chocolate?!

  2. princess pea says:


    On to the Swiss jokes… what about their cheese? Tell me you don’t appreciate some nice holey cheese.

  3. Kathie says:

    Yay! I am going to celebrate by having a cup of instant cocoa, yodeling, re-reading Heidi and enjoying a ricola cough drop! Don’t quite have the energy for blowing those big horns or skiing but I love the Swiss tonight. What country has the biggest “chocolate balls” you ask? Switzerland I say!

  4. Kris says:

    I would like to know what is taking so long on Americas part to get this man back in US custody. Why are they dragging their feet?

  5. Miki Mik says:

    Have any of you seen the documentary, released last year on HBO, “Wanted and Desired?”

    It outlines the case very clearly and explicitly tells why Polanski took off for Paris in the first place. BOTH attorneys for the prosecution and the defense have said that he was not getting a fair trial. AND the Samantha G.’s attorney has said the same thing. So has she.

    There is a legal precedent in the U.S. called the ‘reason for the rule,’ meaning if the reason for the trial is no longer valid, then the ruling should be thrown out. In this case, there is plenty of reason for Polanski to protest the extradition b/c he no longer poses a threat. This whole mess is strange and rings of political nonsense. The timing of his arrest is also odd. They have had plenty of opportunity to arrest him before, why now? There are too many factors here that are not even coming out in the press.

  6. Squirtle says:

    Regardless of the circumstances of the trial; Polanski fled out of the country after being found guilty. He could have filed for an appeal and handled the situation legally but he chose not to, so now he has to go to jail.

    If every person who thought they weren’t getting a fair trial just up and left the country we would have empty jails. There is a system of checks and balances for a reason so let’s use some common sense here.

  7. thedomesticgoddess says:

    The whole thing reeks of political something or other. That he’s been denied bail is news? It’ll be news when he’s sent back to the US. Until then, it’s just boring.

  8. thedomesticgoddess says:

    IMO 🙂

  9. Praise St. Angie! says:

    Miki Mik, he didn’t have a trial. he pleaded guilty to one charge to avoid a trial on all of the charges.

    what you’re referring to is the charge of alleged prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, the basis of which was an interview with the former DA.

    In an interview for that film you mention, he claimed that he had a conversation with the judge that led to the likelihood that Polanski was going to receive a harsher sentence than he originally thought. However, that DA has since admitted that he lied about that conversation with the judge ever taking place. so, most of Polanski’s claim of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct goes out the window right there.

    the facts are simple. he drugged and raped (and sodomized) a 13 year old girl. He pleaded guilty to one charge of what is essentially statutory rape, and was supposed to receive a psychiatric evaluation and then be sentenced. he fled before he could be sentenced. he is therefore a fugitive from justice, and has to face that charge, as well as possibly be sentenced for the original charge of statutory rape.

    as for him no longer posing a threat, how do YOU know whether or not he poses a threat? how do you know how many other young girls he’s abused since then? would you honestly feel comfortable leaving your 13 year-old daughter/sister/niece alone with this man? For a “photo shoot”?

    sorry to write a book, but people who defend him, especially without knowing the facts, make me ill.

  10. gg says:

    :: high-fives Squirtle ::

    THANK YOU– the assho already admitted he drugged and raped a child. I couldn’t care less about the timing. He’s GUILTY.

    And the Swiss court is maybe the smartest I’ve ever heard of, after watching so many celebs get off with “warnings” and admonishments in the UK and US.

  11. Miki Mik says:

    He was never found guilty. He pled guilty to a lesser charge than rape. It was agreed between both attorneys AND the judge that there would be a plea bargain that would include probation, not jail time. The judge threatened to renege on the deal that had already been made just b/c he was concerned about his own precious image in the press. So much for checks and balances. Sounds more like arbitrary, kangaroo court behavior. But then, I wouldn’t want a little something like common sense to get in the way here. Not when you’ve misrepresented the facts already. LOL

  12. Diablo says:

    If he was a priest, no one would defend him. If he had drugged and sodomized a 13 year old boy, no one would defend him. That HBO documentary was a joke and besides, he plead guilty. He made the agreement and since he fled, he has to do the time.

  13. Sakota says:

    A sensible court ruling. No compromises. As for taking a lot of time to extradite him, chances are they are doing this carefully to avoid Polanski being able to accuse people of violating his rights and somehow manage to avoid going back.

    And would Poland please revoke his citizenship?

  14. elvisgrace says:

    @miki mik
    Um, dude, the guy pretty much said he lied and there never was a prosecutorial conspiracy.

    I love the Swiss, and the French can go fuck them selves, those little vichy cheese-eaters!

  15. GatsbyGal says:

    Hahahaha, this is music to my ears. <3

  16. Meh says:

    Latest breaking news is that it was the Swiss who called the US and said he will be here on such and such a date, do you want to file an extradition request and the LA DA did.

    Which means he must have really done something to p*** off the Swiss. Wonder what?

  17. Nony says:

    Good. GOOD. Doubleplusgood.

  18. Daniel says:

    total BS, bottom line: he did it, he plead guilty, we all know he’s guilty, he’s needs to go to jail. I’m tired of “intellectual” “hollywood types” defending this guy. Technicalities or not, law or not, he did the crime, he needs to be punished, whether it was 30 50 years ago or last week. justice needs to be served.

  19. xxzeon says:

    THANK YOU MIKI MIKI: Yours is the 1st intelligent response. It’s amazing how quick others are to judge, condemn and execute without knowing, understanding…or even having the ability to understand…another person. I bet if it was one of their family members in jail they wouldn’t be so quick to judge w/o first exploring the situation as a whole. THANK YOU again!

  20. Leni says:

    so sad. yes right.

  21. Ursula says:

    I am starting to think the French are just morally inept. Case in point, Mitterand and his romps with those poor Thai boys. Loving the Swiss, although their chocolates gave me weight and acne problems.

  22. Praise St. Angie! says:

    Miki Mik, I never said he was “found guilty”. YOU referred to him “not getting a fair trial”. I pointed out to you that THERE WAS NO TRIAL.

    I stated pretty clearly that he PLEADED guilty to a charge of what is essentially statutory rape to avoid a trial on the more serious charges.

    Have trouble reading, do you?

    “It was agreed between both attorneys AND the judge that there would be a plea bargain that would include probation, not jail time.”

    completely untrue.

    “The judge threatened to renege on the deal that had already been made just b/c he was concerned about his own precious image in the press.”

    also completely untrue.

    if you’re too blind (or stupid) to understand the facts of the case, that in no way means that I “misrepresented” them. It simply means that you, for whatever reason, don’t want to acknowledge them.

  23. cc says:

    he raped a child. full stop. why is there a discussion about this?
    rapists go to jail. full stop.

  24. bnizzle says:


  25. Firestarter says:

    I am so sick of hearing “Those of tyou who are so quick to judge” What part of him being a pedophile, child molesting, rapist does not compute with those of you who choose to defend this sick man? I don’t care about an HBO documentary, I don’t care that teh victim says he should not be punished now, I don’t care about what a great directing genius he is- The fact is: He raped a 13 yr old girl. Plied her with drugs and alcohol, and sodomized her. What is so difficult to comprehend about these acts not only being so very wrong, but actions of a depraved, sick mind?

    It amazes me what people in this world condone for the sake of “art” and other frivilous b.s, but were it anyone else, people would be demanding this cowards head on a platter!

  26. isabelle says:

    Dude’s in jail where he belongs.

  27. TwinkleToes says:

    Let’s give a nice round of applause to Miki who’s trolling has been deemed a success here

  28. gg says:

    The victim herself says it happened, and I believe her. If she wants him to not be prosecuted I think she’s wrong to say that – seems like she just wants it to go away and be in denial. But he needs to go to jail for abusing a child, period. The legal wrangling is BS to avoid due justice and let his entitled ass back out into the world to molest more children.

    And how come nobody’s noticed the above photo where he is escorting somebody who looks at least 50 years younger than he? He’s always been a pedophile and gets a Home Free card? NOPE, not in my book. He can join OJ in jail.

  29. Sakota says:

    I wonder if his victim has been subject to some sort of intimidation.

  30. Jen says:

    “if the reason for the trial is no longer valid, then the ruling should be thrown out”

    Okay, then. Have his junk cut off and I’ll agree that he is no longer a threat and the ‘reason for the trial’ no longer applies.