To pursue or not to pursue

Short post this morning, two quick stories:

1. Polanski : la victime demande l’abandon des poursuites

I’m assuming you understand the French. Pretty clear choice. In my book it was a crime the way he did it but many would say it was a crime whichever way it was done, even if she’d consented. Having said that, she, the victim, does not want it to continue because of what it is doing to her own life.

Does she have that right? Should the process stop?

2.  Meredith Kercher

The evidence is completed and a judge has rejected defence requests for an independent review of evidence.

The decision means that a verdict in the trial will come by early December as an independent review could have taken up to a month delaying the decision.

This blog’s last post on it was here.  It urged people to think of it, not in terms of Foxy Knoxy and her domination of the whole event but in terms of the victim and two people accused of killing her in cold blood, in a particularly sordid way.  The laughing and joking with guards seems a very worrying thing on Knox’s part.

11 comments for “To pursue or not to pursue

  1. October 27, 2009 at 10:52

    To 1: I think the wronged party should have a voice. Reopening the case rips the scab off. If Polanski wasn’t arrested and extradited before, it suggests there was some collusion between agencies or governments. So why now?

    By the way, in teaching Looked After Children, it’s commonly said that all abusers have been abused, though not all abused persons go on to become abusers. There’s a (very difficult) balance to be struck between judgement and mercy. And so we get into free will versus determinism. And condign versus exemplary punishment.

    And PS: I looked up your reference to the NWO (Rothschild, Weishaupt etc) – a perfect jungle to get totally lost in, complete with a myriad exotic and mythical beasts. I don’t see this as a Dan Brown continuum heritage, just a set of tendencies that are always there and that will come to the fore when the restraints of law, convention and tradition are weakened.

  2. October 27, 2009 at 11:21

    With Polanski I’m with Sackerson. After this length of time the victim should have a voice.

    The other one sound a cock up all round. IMO the corrupt evidence should be inadmissable as we cannot be certain about it’s source or even if it was tampered with to set them up. It could lead to injustice but that is what our system is set up for. Letting the guilty get away sometimes if you cannot prove anything. I hope the rest of the evidence stands up but it looks unlikely.

  3. October 27, 2009 at 13:09

    Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl.

    This is not a ‘reopening’ of the case, the son of a bitch fled after pleading guilty to the lesser charge of statutory rape. He should have been put away for life in the first place.

    Now he’s celebrated and ‘forgiven’ and all is well. The victim (who received a $500k civil settlement in this case has no say in a state matter. There is not a trial to go, the man is already guilty and fled before he did his time.

    Now he needs to return to face the courts on not only the original charge but now for fleeing.

    I’m glad that certain people don’t seem to care about people RAPING 13 year olds, as long as time passes it must be ok.

  4. October 27, 2009 at 15:18

    So they should have done it then, that’s my point.

  5. October 27, 2009 at 18:48

    And they still should now should be the next point …

    or are you saying its ok to rape because it was a long time ago?

    • October 27, 2009 at 18:55

      Lord Nazh, I hear where you’re coming from – your own daughter makes your feeling on this all the more intense. I don’t disagree and don’t think he should get off free. But what if she, the girl [now woman] just doesn’t want to go through it all again? Other gentlemen – true.

  6. October 27, 2009 at 20:51

    James, there is no ‘go through it all again’… he is GUILTY already, no trial (for that) to even consider; he should goto trial for his running from the law though.

    Also, if the judge decides to not go along with the plea agreement (pleas are made between lawyers, not judges) and have a trial; the state has that right, the victim’s wishes are introduced in the sentencing phase, not the trial (where the innocence or guilt is determined, not the level of remorse or forgiveness).

    My daughter colors some of my feelings sure, but basic fucking human decency should color the rest. He gave alcohol and drugs to a 13 year old girl, then while she said NO repeatedly he raped her in more than one place.

    There is NO, NONE, NADDA thing you will say on this that will make me think that he should not be prosecuted; frankly I think he should be shot, but luckily (or not) I am not in charge of sentencing.

    The time since and the paid off victim do not enter into my mind on what I think or feel about Polanski and the people that defend his actions.

  7. October 27, 2009 at 22:14

    I don’t defend Polanski. I query why, since he didn’t hide, or change his name, he wasn’t arrested before. What was going on? Has he forgotten to keep up somebody’s payments?

  8. October 28, 2009 at 00:34

    Polanski has stayed (mostly) in countries that do not have extradition agreements withe the US and just recently had his lawyers try to claim that since the LAPD was not trying to arrest him, the case should be thrown out.

    Seems the LAPD didn’t like that and the calls were made that he was going to a country (at a time and place that we knew of) that would extradite him.

    So it went down. I apologize for lumping you in with the Polanski defenders.

  9. October 28, 2009 at 03:30

    I don’t think anyone here is defending Polanski – that’s a given. The question is whether we’re going soft on him. I once had a kid come to me as “first complainant” and watched it unfold as the state moved in.

    Apart from the police surgeon who phoned me for my assessment [presumably he phoned psychologists and all], everyone seemed hellbent on getting the man but not on the kid.

    Naturally, she just wanted it all to go away and bitterly regretted having told me. I’d asked if she’d let me break it to her mum and she grudgingly said yes. The mum called the authorities and hell broke loose.

    He pleaded a lesser charge and was let off with a fine. I ran into him and he asked if I was satisfied. I said he should have been behind bars. He swore to bring me down – interesting how perpetrators turn it round 180 degrees, isn’t it?

    Since then, I’ve always looked at the victim first and what’s best for him/her. I don’t mean what’s best in my opinion but what the general opinion of “experts” is. If part of that is bringing him to justice, so be it but if she is so dead against it, then another way needs to be found.

    On the other hand, we have the Manson type who keeps the girls under some sort of spell and he plays on that. They want him set free. It’s no easy matter, this.

    I think I’ll lift this comment and make it a post today. If you don’t mind, I’ll close off comments here and continue them on the new post.

Comments are closed.