Whatever. That was yesterday and the day before.
The facts of the Roman Polanski child-rape case - the facts on record, unchanged, during 30 or so years - are that he plied a 13 year old girl with alcohol, drugged her, photographed her naked, and then then violently raped her, including sodomy.
Whoopi Goldberg, as well as Polanski's former sister-in-law, Debra Tate, have both declared that drugging a child and subjecting her to a violent and prolonged rape is not "rape-rape".
According to Tate:
"There's rape and then there's rape. It was determined Roman did not forcibly have sex with this women. It was a consensual matter."Fact: a 13 year old girl is not a woman.
Fact: a 13 year old child is not deemed legally capable of giving consent to sex.
Fact: suggesting that a drunk and drugged child consented to anything is perverse, deceitful.
Fact: it is an outright lie to say that "it was determined" that Polanski did not rape the child.
Fact: the evidence "determined" that Polanski raped a child.
Let's face it folks, Polanski didn't willingly plead guilty because he thought it would help get the case over with and off the front pages, or so as to spare a child from testifying. He admitted guilt because he was advised to by his expensive lawyers, and to do otherwise would have seen the overwhelming evidence aired and recorded in the full light of a court room.
According to Goldberg:
"I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else."Sure Whoopi, you just keep telling yourself that, you piece of dirt.
A good enough examination of the latest statements from the famous and immoral, from the UK ... here ... The comments are also worth a glance, especially if you're beginning to think the entire world has gone mad: don't be concerned, it hasn't.
And the Polanski public defense goes on ... and on.
This is turning out to be an even more tawdry media moment than I'd initially assessed.
One question left begging, alluded to, even asked by one or two: why now? Polanski has been traipsing around Europe, including traveling into and out of Switzerland for decades. No one has so much taped him on the shoulder in all that time, certainly not the Swiss.
Vaguely framed statements about last year's documentary on Polanski, which revealed possible judicial idiocy at the time of the case (with the sole living accuser having now denied, in full, everything he said in that documentary in any case) doesn't cut it as a reason, since the behavior of the judge is nothing but a minor segue, a trifling distraction with no compelling legal implications, from the real point of the thing: Polanski being a calculated child rapist.
Anyway, the question of "why now" will likely be one of life's mysteries, albeit, such an unfortunate on in this instance, since it would have been better for all parties if he had been re-arrested and extradited at least a couple of decades ago. What have been ...
Morally relativistic assertions continue to roll:
"In Europe, the prevailing mood — at least among those with access to the news media — seemed to be that Mr. Polanski has already “atoned for the sins of his young years,” as Jacek Bromski, the chief of the Polish Filmmakers Association, put it."Fact: Roman Polanski was 44 - FORTY FOUR - years old when he raped that child.
He was hardly in the midst of his "young years". He was already a middle - aged man.
The Polanski case