Info about the Polanski Case:

[Are_grits_groceries]

Here are several sources to consider if you want to know more.

Feb. 19, 2009 | Bad art is supposed to be harmless, but the 2008 film "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," about the notorious child-sex case against the fugitive director, has become an absolute menace. For months, lawyers for the filmmaker have been maneuvering to get the Los Angeles courts to dismiss Polanski's 1978 conviction, based on supposed judicial misconduct uncovered in the documentary. On Tuesday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza ruled that if Polanski, who fled on the eve of his sentencing, in March 1978, wanted to challenge his conviction, he could -- by coming back and turning himself in.

Espinoza was stating the obvious: Fugitives don't get to dictate the terms of their case. Polanski, who had pleaded guilty to having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl, was welcome to return to America, surrender, and then petition the court as he wished. Indeed, the judge even gave Polanski more than he deserved, saying that he might actually have a case. "There was substantial, it seems to me, misconduct during the pendency of this case," he said, according to the Los Angeles Times. "Other than that, he just needs to submit to the jurisdiction of the court."
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2009/02/19/roman_polanski_documentary/index.html

Documentary:
Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired
On March 11, 1977, Roman Polanski was arrested in Los Angeles and charged with the following counts: furnishing a controlled substance to a minor, committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child, unlawful sexual intercourse, rape by use of drugs, perversion and sodomy. Less than a year later, on February 1, 1978, Polanski drove to LAX, bought a one-way ticket to Europe, and never came back. Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired explores the implausible events that took place between these dates, along with details, before and after, that forever altered the life and career of Polanski, one of the world's most acclaimed directors.

This snippet of an interview with the filmmaker should give you a taste of what to expect from the film:

I felt it was my job to explain how people think they know the story, but they don't. That doesn't excuse Polanski in any way, but it shows what he went through. I think the best viewer for this film is someone who can't stand Roman Polanski and is disgusted by what happened. But if they allow themselves to watch the film, they usually come away from it feeling differently. If not about the crime, then at least about the aftermath. It's quite surprising.
http://kottke.org/08/06/roman-polanski-wanted-and-desired

"The Zero" - website of Andrew Vachss
http://www.vachss.com/index.html

Here is info about the Polanski case:

Roman Polanski Media Reports Archive
News reports and legal information related to Roman Polanski's arrest, plea bargain, guilty plea, conviction, flight from justice, and fugitive status on charges of drugging and raping a 13- year-old girl in 1977. Please note: because there are so many cyber-chumps who "trust the Web," and because rumors, myths, and outright disinformation have been generated and disseminated concerning Roman Polanski, The Zero has established a "one-stop shop" for purely factual information, so that those actually interested in the truth can find it. What you will not find here is commentary, editorials, analysis, opinion, or hearsay. If that's what you are looking for, go find a newsgroup. If you want the truth, here it is.
http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html

Link to victim's grand jury testimony: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia1.html

Vachss founded Protect.org: http://www.protect.org/

I have no idea what will happen to him. He made a choice and ran. He had plead guilty to one charge. 5 others had been dropped.

Personally, I think child molestation or worse is one of the worst crimes committed. I don't know why his age, the years since he ran, his victim's views now or his art should be mitigating circumstances. If there was legal malfeasance somewhere, then let it come to light for all to see.

Fugitives from the 1960's have been brought back to finish sentences after establishing spotless new lives. That was never a consideration in putting them back in jail.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. I'm conflicted.

As much as I would like to see the resolution of this allegation, I'm uncertain whether the victim should be put through this all over again. I've read she's accepted an undisclosed amount of money for a settlement and she's a mother now. She's moved on and a trial might dredge up memorys she's best put behind her.

[msongs]

4. if called to tesify she can use the reagan defense: I don't recall or

when asked "is that the man....?" she can say no and end it right there.

Msongs

[msanthrope]

7. Nope. Her grand jury testimony comes into play. It doesn't end. n/t

[localroger]

8. There won't be a trial -- he pled out

He fled between pleading guilty and sentencing, apparently because it was clear the judge was going to renege on the plea deal on which the guilty plea depended. Even the prosecuting attorney is on record as saying that his running is understandable, the grandstanding judge was preparing to put him in jail for decades for a crime that at the time normally drew 2-3 years (which Polanski was apparently willing to serve).

At this point there won't be another trial, since he's pled guilty, but there might be more charges because of the running and the sentence still has to be passed for the original crime (which was not rape, nor statutory rape as we now understand it, but something like "unlawful carnal knowledge of a minor" IIRC.)

[paulsby]

9. polanski is guilty as hell

all the other stuff is nice, but that's the main issue to me.

he was guilty as hell, and he fled to avoid prosecution

the idea that he should be able to make these kinds of appeals in absentia, is ridiculous

[Are_grits_groceries]

5. I don't know if everything begins over.

I'm not sure at what point this case will begin. I know fleeing the law is a crime and possible jail time. That's a new one he added when he left.

He could get minimal damage from the original case, and smacked because he ran. That's like getting time for perjury when telling the truth might have brought less punishment. The prosecutors will really go after you for perjury. Look at Martha Stewart, Marion Jones, and others. In addition, I think they write your name somewhere in indelible ink because it pisses them off. They can wait, but they don't stop.

[Odin2005]

2. Toss him in jail for the rest of his life.

Fuck the apologists.

[Whisp]

11. agreed. put the vile and sick beast away.

he makes me want to vomit.

[AllentownJake]

3. How can any self respecting liberal

excuse behavior because someone has a talent.

I don't care what great art he has produced. He raped a 13 year old girl.

[paulsby]

10. and he refused to take responsibility for it

compare with (for example) michael vick.

vick did a scummy, evil thing

vick did his time, is now making amends (whether they are done for positive publicity or not is tangential to the fact that he is working with animal protection groups), and deserves a second chance.

polanski did an evil, scummy thing, and then ran away.

he drugged and raped a 13 yr old girl, using the ruse of "you could be in pictures"

both polanski and vick are talented.

the distinction i draw is that one has paid his dues, and the other hasn't

and whether or not the victim now wants to forgive him or move on or whatever is, imo, irrelevant.

the issue is that he was convicted and he fled

[katandmoon]

6. Throw his admittedly guilty ass in jail and throw away the key