EXCLUSIVE: Polanski Prosecutor and Defense Attorney Charge L.A. Court Made “False And Reprehensible Statement”

COMMENTS (13)

• The film is produced by Roman’s ex-PR Manager. Now, he’s distibuting ridiculous letters like this looking to drum up publicity. Roman drugged and forcibly raped a child. Everyone understands that Roman saw some hard times prior to that, but no one is buying the idea that he’s a victim of the court system. Gunson and Dalton are wasting the court’s time.

  Comment by Chuck — Wednesday June 11, 2008 @ 7:24pm PDT  Reply to this post

• chuck,
  Interesting if it’s true about the PR connection and Dalton was Polanski’s lawyer. So fine. But Gunson prosecuted Polanski and clearly states in the documentary (and now in his rebuttal to the Court’s rebuttal) that the judge was a liar and a meida whore. Why would the man who built the case against Polanski be saying so except to get the truth out?
  Why would you think that Polanski couldn’t be both a rapst AND a victim of the court system as the nicely produced documentary clearly suggests.

  Comment by writer — Wednesday June 11, 2008 @ 9:05pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Nikki, I know we’re not supposed to make snarky comments about other posters on this site . . . but Chuck is simply an idiot.

  Comment by Please — Thursday June 12, 2008 @ 8:23am PDT  Reply to this post

• Nicely put, Writer. The documentary did cover Polanski’s tragic past, but not in detail. The ‘unlawful’ sex (had it been labeled as rape, France might have extradited him) was described much more than his experiences in the Holocaust or his pregnant wife’s murder. Considering that, I didn’t feel as though the film was trying to drum up sympathy for Polanski. The focus was on how Judge Rittenbaum cared more about his own public perception than he did the judicial system. Point being, Polanski isn’t the only one who did something illegal.

  Comment by kw — Thursday June 12, 2008 @ 9:38am PDT  Reply to this post

• I’m not interested in having another child molester marauding around LA. Polanski can stay right where he is, unless he wants to come back and do some time.

  Comment by BigSid — Thursday June 12, 2008 @ 12:17pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I suppose the issue as to the credibility of Gunson depends on whether he is still a prosecutor, or whether he has “switched sides.” In any event, the deal that was almost worked out seems fair; I certainly don’t think Polanski should be punished any more than anyone else who drugs and rapes a child.

  Comment by Steve Smith — Friday June 13, 2008 @ 2:58pm PDT  Reply to this post

• In response to Chuck’s post that “the film is produced by Roman’s ex-PR Manager”: Although the term “PR Manager” is somewhat of a mystery, he must be referring to Mark Urman President of ThinkFilm who is distributing the film theatrically. Urman was Polanski’s publicist in the 1990s. Although, interviewed for the film he did not make the final cut and he most certainly did not produce the film.

  Michelle Sullivan,
  Associate Producer,
  Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired

  Comment by Michelle Sullivan — Wednesday July 9, 2008 @ 11:04am PDT  Reply to this post

• People, you talk like if he was convicted, remember that rape charges and drugging charges and all others were DROPPED, and what stayed was the sexual intercourse with the minor. So, don’t put things which were not happening, if someone is intitially charged, doesn’t mean he is automatically guilty of this, specially when charges were dropped. Also the judge was removed of the case because of his misconduct,as he mishandled the case. However he was never persecuted for this, and he practiced law, he was not sued and he kept his license. The judge would need to go to jail for what he did. Polanski also was facing up to 50 years in prison for is he would be convicted fro sexual intercourse with a minor, not talking rape here or drugging.He did something illegal, but there was also the failure on the side of the justice system.I despise what the did, but locking someone for life? Where we live? In some backward country or what? This is not XVIIIc., but XXI.

  Comment by Barbie — Saturday May 9, 2009 @ 7:20pm PDT  Reply to this post

• http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html

  The above included URL shows word for word from the victims testimony how Polanski took naked pictures, Drugged, raped and sodomized a thirteen year old girl.
  This monster gets off with sexual intercourse with a minor, flees the country. Is offered to be free of charges after what is essentually a big publicity stunt. Oh the pain and humiliation he must of had to endure over the years trying to distract from his crime and talk about mishandling and publicity hungery judges. Oh wait it was his publicity that kept him out of jail in the first place and that is the true problem with the judicial system and the movie itself.

  Comment by collin — Sunday May 10, 2009 @ 4:15am PDT  Reply to this post

• Oh, Collin, Collin, Collin. It was in the 70s. The rape and drug charges were dropped, and the judge booted. Stand on your high-horse if you want – I’m sure youre a puritan. The laws and culture around young sex were much looser then – back then if a teacher had sex with a student they would only get a reprimand. Times have changed, and now we accept this to be a more serious crime. “Monster?” I don’t think so. Why in Alabama, 13 year olds STILL get married. How came your not screaming about Lorretta Lynn’s marriage? How many others are there. You’re not just a hypoctite, you’re an idiot.

  Comment by Jeff — Sunday September 27, 2009 @ 9:00am PDT  Reply to this post

• Jeff said:”The laws and culture around young sex were much looser then” Huh? Things were more conservative then, not less. What’s this got to do with teachers? People are now less fearful about reporting crime, because police etc. have worked to change procedures. “Times have changed, and now we accept this to be a more serious crime.” When has a 44 year old man having sex with a 13 year old girl with or without the help of drugs and alcohol not been taken seriously? Per FindLaw, without parental consent men and women must be 18 years old to marry in Alabama. http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/marriage-age-requirements/alabama/
  What country are you from Jeff?

  Comment by vermontfudge — Monday September 28, 2009 @ 7:17pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • Speaking of parental consent, what was a thirteen year old doing with Polanski at all? Couldn’t have been a tacit understanding about money and modeling and fame, or a hope Polanski would marry her in Georgia, could it?

    Sexual mores in California in the 70s were CONSERVATIVE? What are you, ninety or nineteen?

    Comment by Questioner — Tuesday September 29, 2009 @ 11:24pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I don’t care what year or century this is Rape is Rape and if anyone out there thinks giving a 13 year old girl alcohal and booze and then calling it consenual—Please beam me up Scotty !!!!!

  Comment by Grace Lapolla — Saturday October 3, 2009 @ 9:31am PDT  Reply to this post