Question in Polanski Arrest: Why Now?

[groovedaddy]

LOS ANGELES — The sudden move by Swiss authorities to arrest Roman Polanski for possible extradition to the United States after 31 years as a fugitive — and countless visits to Switzerland in the interim — has roused diplomats, offended supporters of the filmmaker and left more than a few onlookers asking themselves the same question: Why now?

Law enforcement officials here have said it was a simple matter of opportunity.

“He just showed up at a time and a place where we knew he would be available,” Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for Stephen L. Cooley, the Los Angeles County district attorney, said Monday.

But supporters of Mr. Polanski have said that this has been true many times since he fled the United States in 1978 to escape sentencing in a sex-crimes case involving a 13-year-old girl.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/movies/29polanski.html?th&emc=th

[Ghost Dog]

1. It looks more like a sudden US move than a Swiss-instigated one:

Bern says it acted in accordance with a mandate from the United States, which told them the number of the flight and its time of arrival in Switzerland. A spokesman from the Swiss justice and police ministry said this was standard procedure.

--> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6652069#6652280

The OP in that thread suggests a "specific purpose of creating a wedge issue to divide and distract liberals... Meanwhile, the Cons continue to sabotage Health Care and quietly move to control (as in Pest Control) progressives in the media and on the Internet."

...The 'mandate' referred to would have been sent to Switzerland directly by this District Attorney?

[Democracyinkind]

5. yeah... that thread really clears things up. And shows that if it's politics, it's american politics

[no_hypocrisy]

2. A theory: He was arrested en route to an awards ceremony in his honor.

The publicity would be more pronounced than if he were "nabbed" going to the corner store for some smokes.

[jobycom]

3. Before this is over, everyone will wish they hadn't bothered.

The legal costs, the extradition costs, the PR battles, the pickets and protests, the media coverage, the accusations and counter-accusations... All to arrest one man whose victim says she feels more raped by the prosecutor than by the criminal. The prosecutors and officials here will be attacked by all sides, with no real benefit to themselves, the victim, or really even to the justice system.

[groovedaddy]

7. So, lets let all sex offenders out of prison/jail because it's "just not worth it?"

If you're rich and can get out of the country, you've got your "get of jail free" card.

[jobycom]

12. I'm sorry, you'll have to show me where I said that.

[groovedaddy]

14. You didn't say it. I said it. It was conjecture on my part, based on what you said. n.t

[Warpy]

8. Yeah, the victim has to be reliving the whole thing right now

I don't remember much about the case except feeling that Polanski got almost as raw a deal as the poor girl did.

The prosecutors aren't going to come out of this smelling like roses. No one is.

[Howardx]

4. why not now?

he's an admitted child rapist and wanted fugitive who has escaped justice for far too long. now is good for me.

[jobycom]

9. He wouldn't have been an "admitted" child rapist if the judge had not lied.

Polanski gave up his legal right to a defense and pled guilty only because the judge and prosecutor agreed to a light sentence involving no jail time. Without that agreement Polanski would have paid for a strong defense, challenged the witness's memories in court, made life Hell for her and her reputation, and no doubt--I hope you have no doubt on this--gotten away scott free, with absolutely no penalty aside from his defense costs.

To forgo that cost, and to prevent dragging the victim through the ringer, the DA, the judge, and the defense all agreed to a sentence each party thought appropriate.

Then the judge decided he wanted the glory and fame, so he tried to go back on his promise AFTER Polanski pleaded guilty.

The victim here says she feels more raped by the judge and prosecutor than by Polanski. Polanski's Constitutional right to a fair trial (not that those matter anymore, right?) was railroaded by a corrupt judge. The chance for justice was lost long ago in a bonfire of vanities. And this latest development is just another vain log on that fire, from some officials who want the publicity and glory to put before their voters.

Ain't no news about this story any good.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Legally, he's not an admitted rapist at all, since...

all rape charges were dropped.

Morally, he may be a scumbag, and legally he may have scooted easier than some college kid accused of date rape, but he's still technically not a rapist.

Doesn't stop the pent-up outrage from people who've ignored this for 30 years, though.

[Howardx]

13. he admitted rape

the fact that he pleaded down means nothing. he admitted rape.

[larryhorse]

6. I suspect it was a plot to make

Whoopi Goldberg look more like a fool than she already was.

Not Rape-Rape?