corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
I was wondering that as well, but couldn't get a response out without flying into TYPING FINGERS OF RAGE.
Unfortunately, the allegations against Jackson are not based on innuendo and hearsay. They are based on victims' testimony which was either withdrawn or altered because Jacko paid off his victims, pure and simple.
I accept that we can't exhume a dead man to retrial him in actuality, but in the court of the conscience, frankly, we should be able to.
I'm hoping this was a slip on your part, and you meant she had experimented with sex, not rape. If it's a slip it's a doozy. If it's not a slip...
I'm working on a longer response for the thread, but the bit I quoted just keeps bugging the hell out of me. I mean if it isn't a slip, I REALLY want to know just what the fuck lazarus meant by "experimented with rape".
Hold on.
Some here would suggest the photos be considered "art".
<>
Testimony is hearsay.
Since when?
Did you not see the pictures of the tunnel?
I'd also like to know what brought you to this conclusion......
I don't think he's a monster. I think he should serve his time for the crime he committed. (But I see Irvine's point.)
If he doesn't, it sends a message that that while Roman Polanski is a great director and above the law, the thirteen year old girl he raped is expendable.
A stretch? They're holding up the man over his crime and therefore stating his importance over the victim's. So no. Not so much of a stretch.
What kind of sentence is apt in this case though? Do they revert back to the original deal, which was a couple of weeks in jail, if I remember correctly, or have him serve out a new line of sentencing?
I'm not trying to imply what he did wasn't awful, but what do you do at this point, 30+ years after the fact?
Because people find it appalling that you might suggest a thirteen year old shares some responsibility in her being raped by a guy in his thirties?
Not that it's really relevant, thirties vs 40's-but he was 43
part of my distaste with this whole thing is that the typical conservative jihadists -- like Michelle Malkin and diamond ....
. .......he has now been caught. and something should happen.
I'd also like to know what brought you to this conclusion......
According to Geimer's testimony, Polanski first met Geimer at her home Feb. 13, 1977. Geimer said the director asked her mother if he could photograph her for French Vogue. She said her mother agreed to a private photo shoot, which Geimer told ABC's "Good Morning America" in 2003 that she believed would help further her acting career.
The director returned nearly a week later to take Geimer for the photo shoot about a block from her home. Geimer said that at the top of a hill, Polanski asked her to change shirts, which she did in front of him.
Then, she said, he asked her to pose topless, which she also did, though she said she felt uncomfortable.
Said in jest, for the defenders and sympathizers of Polanski here.
Often child rapists and predators take photos of their victims, and sickly claim the photos are "art". And it wouldn't be too far of a logical leap for some Polanski sympathizers to claim the same.
Who here is defending Polanski's actions?
No one here has apologized for his actions. A few have attempted to provide some context,
but absolutely no one here has said that what he did was ok and that he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions
.
but absolutely no one here has said that what he did was ok and that he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions
To make excuse for or regretful acknowledgment of a fault or offense.
No one here has apologized for his actions. A few have attempted to provide some context, but absolutely no one here has said that what he did was ok and that he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions.
I can definitely see how one poster's "context" came across in the way that diamond is suggesting.
But the bit about the pictures and "art" was unnecessary and added nothing to the conversation other than a chance to get in a jab.
I do believe some here would claim the photos would be "art" only.
And, child pornography is not art.
Well, laz did blame the girl and to be honest, I find excuse making for rapists appalling.
I don't think the pictures are either here or there. They're not what he was convicted of, and an aside to the fact that he raped her, so I don't see the point of getting into a circular debate about them.