In regards to Joseph Smith I will say a few things. Like many other prophets (that you can read about in the scriptures) he did some very controversial things – polygamy being only one of them. I am aware of those controversies and do not blind myself to them. However, he was still a prophet of God.

McCoy, I’ll just be frank and direct with you. Go somewhere else or go to hell. I don’t care which.

IANAL.

Her opinions don’t matter for the sake of his coinviction. The point is that she did not ever testify at trial because he pleaded guilty. The problem is that the guilty plea is the subject of a motion to dismiss because of prosecutorial misconduct. If that is granted, he would have to be tried and she would have to testify, which she has said she will not do. So if the guilty plea is withdrawn, he will never be convicted. Case dismissed.

Good point. But all that assumes he returns to face the music. Which he hasn’t.

Stephen, I’m no criminal law expert, nor am I perfectly versed in the facts of this case, but I think you’re wrong.

You still have to have a witness who is willing to testify against Polanski in court, and that witness can’t be Polanski. The 5th amendment still applies, and you can’t enter out of court statements as evidence of anything, since they are subject to the hearsay rule.

My understanding of the “film” of the incident is that Polanski was taking still photos of the girl prior to having sex with her. If that’s the case, those photos may be evidence of exploitation, but not of unlawful sex or rape.

Not when you flee the jurisdiction, it tolls (suspends) the running of limitations.

And MCQ, they don’t need her testimony. The guy filmed the event and gave interviews later about it. You can try him quite easily with his confession (the interviews) and the film.

Her opinions don’t matter for the sake of his coinviction. The point is that she did not ever testify at trial because he pleaded guilty. The problem is that the guilty plea is the subject of a motion to dismiss because of prosecutorial misconduct. If that is granted, he would have to be tried and she would have to testify, which she has said she will not do. So if the guilty plea is withdrawn, he will never be convicted. Case dismissed.

So, he deserves a prosecution for making child porn, intentionally so. No need for the grand jury testimony at all, or anything besides his own public statements and his filmography … or at least that part of his oerve.

Unless you think fame, fortune and liberal media adoration are the appropriate rewards for that sort of repeat behavior.

Plus, we’re weighing Roman Polanski according to the facts of the case (and his guilty plea) as it occurred back in the day, not today. The victim’s forgiveness does not mitigate what she testified or thought back then.

Maybe Roman Polanski should be retried using her grand jury testimony given TODAY’S attitudes toward child rapists. I think he’s looking at a better deal with the situation as it currently stands.

As was the fact he had gained quite a bit of weight on his mission and did not look very attractive when it all happened. The British newspaper that broke the story about how the ex-girlfriend financed the entire thing is a story of its own.