Isn't 30 years a Saturn cycle?

Talent, fame and riches doesn't mean you're above the law. That way anarchy lies.

And though we might all like to joke about anarchy and having it goose our Uranuses, it's not pretty. Especially when you're a 13 year old girl. So as far as I'm concerned, Pluto in Capricorn is telling him to man up and suck it.

I'm stepping away from this thread. I can't take two of these in a row. Carry on, ladies and gentlemen.

Good. I'm glad. Part of me hopes he burns. I still can't get over how they gave him a standing ovation at the Oscars for The Pianist.

Ouch- how do you know the victim is over it? Because she looks happy?

I'm afraid the man will have to pay his dues. And rightly so (if he did it).

"So as far as I'm concerned, Pluto in Capricorn is telling him to man up and suck it." LMAO

I don't think he should be above the law due to his fame, agreed...

But I do think it's a little ridiculous that there's no statute of limitations on this. It all seems a little ridiculous considering how long ago it was, and that he's not even a US citizen anymore.

Even if he weren't famous, I'd say it's a little late to be doing anything about this. I mean, she's a 43-year old woman now.  There's a reason you're supposed to punish the criminals fairly close to when they commit the crime, so that they can pay for it when it happens. The only exception should be murder.

I just don't see how anyone is going to benefit from his being sentenced. Things are beyond the point that there would be any benefit in this. The whole case seems like a tremendous waste of resources the courts could be using to deal with bigger injustices. Instead of wasting time on a 30-year old crime that's hardly relevant to anyone anymore.

I'm serious, who really wins here? It gives him more publicity, costs money for taxpayers in two countries, and maybe gives a 43-year old woman some cash she probably doesn't even need.

If I read the article correctly, even the victim in the case said she feels that she and her children are being more harmed by this being brought to light, and has asked that they drop the charges. It actually looks like there are no real winners here.

you know what, forget it. go with god, athenian200.

I agree with neva and would add, if you are not going to enforce your laws there is no sense having laws.

Well, yeah, you're probably right.

This is why I don't think I'd be a good candidate for law school... or a jury, for that matter.

Sometimes I tend to look at situations more in terms of what benefits people, than in terms of what's precisely fair...

I mean, I think there should be laws, I just don't know if it's necessary to enforce them consistently in situations where nothing is gained from doing so. I'm actually just as glad it's not my decision as you probably are, though. 

Polanski was charged within a few weeks of the crime and pleaded guilty. At this point, he is a fugitive from justice who is awaiting sentencing. Once you're a fugitive, the statute of limitations clock stops ticking.

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/29/law-catch-roman-polanski

"Los Angeles county authorities have had a warrant out for Polanski's arrest since he fled the US in 1978 while awaiting sentencing after admitting having sex with a 13-year-old girl. But they have only sought his arrest around the world since 2005, when they issued an international arrest warrant."

That's seriously total crap. 

Francetta, so perhaps someone new is in charge? 

My sister was recently contacted regarding an open, but on ice murder case we are involved in. They decided to assign a cold case detective to have a look at the thing.

I don't know if anything will come of it but I can tell you without question the guilty parties deserve punishment. Justice may not have been served in a timely manner but if is served at some point I will be greatly relieved and gratified because people really should not get away with murder, nor should they get away with drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13 year old child.

Saturn comes around when saturn comes around and that is just all there is to it.

I agree with you. I just didn't like how that statement was worded. Made it sound to me like the authorities were asleep at the wheel for 30 years. You've assured me that that probably wasn't the case at all. I just wish I was able to find specific information about what was going on in that huge time gap.

Francetta, I understand. Very hard to get actual information about anything. It's extremely frustrating.

Justice will always occur, even if it takes a billion years.

I think it's funny that the related post to Roman Polanski is "Do you feel the art of romance and chivalry has died?"

LOL.

this article says it much better than i ever could...  it's titled "Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child"

 http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/index.html

Just the way this case is being viewed by his supporters in Hollywood pretty much confirms that Hollywood is ruled by Neptune. The shadow side of the planet that muddles and forgets everything, of course.

I do hope he ends his life in jail. If he was just any old guy we would be cheering the authorities for finally getting through. Just because he's Polanski there's doubt-horrible and pretty unfair to us regular folk who have to pay for our crimes no matter how creative we are!

"I just don't see how anyone is going to benefit from his being sentenced. Things are beyond the point that there would be any benefit in this"

There are certain types of crimes that affect their victims their entire lives. The way in which we see and interact with the world is molded when we are children (a 13 year old is still a child.)  I honestly think that rapists/sexual abusers deserve punishment as harsh as murderers because that is exactly what it does to you.  Completely warps your sense of the world.

Anyway, he was tried and convicted.... his judgement has already been cast... time to pay your dues...

It's not just how it affects them their entire lives though, even old people can be sexual predators. And it's not like this man is without a history himself separate from this particular rape case. As far as I'm concerned, he should be locked up for life, I really don't care how great any of his work might of been.

I so feel he deserves to pay for his very serious crimes.

"It wasn't a rape-rape."

Whoopi Goldberg

Is Whoopi serious? People amaze me. Sheesh.

I'm the same age he was when this happened. I don't "see" kids that age let alone am I attracted to them. I sure as hell don't want to give them champagne & drugs so that they will "comply" with whatever I want to do to them.

It pisses me off that Angelica Huston was in the house and did nothing.

Why do people defend this man?  I know he's famous, had a horrible tragedy in his life care of Charles Manson, and has done some good work.  But why are they defending him?  Do they see something that reminds them of themselves?

Why not defend the girl instead?  What he did is beyond reprehensible.  She is a victim and who knows what she's gone through in terms of trust broken and so forth.  Whatever the case may be, the focus should be on getting justice for her, no matter how much time has gone by.

I don't even want to know what a "rape-rape" is.

Agreed, Francetta. Apparently when rich, refined people shit, it doesn't stink.

thank you for the photo's Elsa. The pictures say a thousand words, don't they.

Annalisa

The tide is turning on the bastard:

 "The French government has dropped its public support for Roman Polanski, saying the 76-year-old director "is neither above nor beneath the law"

Also reports of a backlash against celebs standing up for him.

Off topic some but it makes me sick how they jump on... and off a bandwagon. I can;t wait to see them turn on Chavez.   Do you back a dictator or stand for freedom? Make up your mind!!!!

Agrees with miss monica moonpluto trine (right?) Once again

And yeah, thanx for finding and posting that picture

Sick world

Elsa you removed the last comment you made  ..but that opened my eyes a bit…

yeah, I did remove it, sorry, iathina85. I figure I have been in enough hot water this week.  As for your bandwagon... I admire the hell out of you and was just telling satori this on the phone.

You have graced this site since you showed you... complementing (not complimenting) everything and I greatly appreciate it.

On this issue, I appreciate you bringing it to the boards and thought it might be hard on you will everyone posting opposing your view but you have stood up in all ways.

I also appreciate people on this thread not attacking or insulting you and I think that has as much to do with you as it does them. :)

I will not remove this comment. ;-)

elsa!!

I can not express in words..the warmt I felt by your comment..thank you:) <3

grateful and  stunned by the fact that no one has attact me for veiws that are very contraversial....but then again this is a very open and completely amazing blog and community!! Learning alot from alot of wonderful people!

As for the question, is there something in his chart? Look at that t-square, Moon conjunct Pluto in Cancer on the Midheaven square Mars conjunct Juno opposite Uranus conjunct Ceres. Mars-Pluto is a classic rape signature and look at all the feminine symbolism involved: the Moon-Pluto in Cancer, the Moon itself, Juno, the spouse/wife, Ceres, the mother. Uranus even rules the 5th house, children. Mars-Pluto, violence, rape, force, abuse of power, etc.; Uranus-making a break for it, freedom, also an attitude of doing what one wants and getting away with it. The whole thing also describes the famous (Midheaven) brutal murder of his wife, 7th house, Juno, etc., and unborn child, and the bizarreness of all of that.

I think it needs to be said of course that people can have a configuration like this one in the natal chart and not be a rapist, a murderer, or the victim of either, but it certainly has that potential depending on the level of the consciousness of the person. 

Sorry I kinda breezed through this but I think it gives the flavor of it.

Thank you Elsa for providing a forum where unpopular opinions can be safely expressed.

But I do think it's a little ridiculous that there's no statute of limitations on this. It all seems a little ridiculous considering how long ago it was, and that he's not even a US citizen anymore.

Statute of limitations has to do with the timeliness in charging someone for a crime. He was already charged and indicted in the 1970's. He then copped a guilty plea to the lesser charge and was merely awaiting sentencing, which he skipped out on before sentencing could be completed. Statute of limitations doesn't apply when the defendant has already been charged or has copped a plea.

This is a very complicated case, with many grey areas. But the law is clear. The original judge on the case behaved unethically and grossly mishandled everything; Polanski was definitely wronged by the system. But there are (and were) options within the legal system to correct that. There is an entire appeals system in place, and given the fact that the original judge did behave so badly there was a good chance that his lawyers could have even gotten the case thrown out back in 1978. That judge was removed from the case eventually - it was after Polanski had fled.

They can still charge him for being a fugitive from justice, and as someone mentioned above, statute of limitations doesn't apply to that either, since he's continued to be a fugitive for 30 years. The countdown towards statute of limitations won't start until he hits American soil.

There's a reason you're supposed to punish the criminals fairly close to when they commit the crime, so that they can pay for it when it happens.

Except that he was supposed to pay for it when it happened in 1978 and didn't. He fled the jurisdiction before he was sentenced.

I don't know why it wasn't pursued for years and then suddenly they came after him again, an issue which has been brought up a lot. Maybe someone new came in, as Elsa pointed out. The circumstances surrounding his arrest now, after all this time, do seem sort of odd. But I think he needs to face the music. It's awful that the victim has to go through all this again now. But the fact is Polanski himself has not shown any consideration for the victim or any remorse for what he did to her; I haven't seen any evidence of it if he has. If someone wants to point me to some place where he has I'd be glad to read it. If he hadn't fled the country this would have been done with 30 years ago and the victim wouldn't still be dealing with it. And at this point releasing him would be continuing to send the message that a rich and famous celebrity, politician, sportsfigure, etc. can do whatever they want with no consequences and can be above the law. Haven't we had enough of that already?

Thanks for that post Amy. Excellent points about the statue of limitations, i.e., it doesn't apply here, and the fact that he's a fugitive from justice. Maybe he thought that if he stayed away long enough, it would blow over and be forgotten.

From the New York Times:

That’s because in many ways, reactions differed little. There was Whoopi Goldberg, the American actress, claiming to find some difference between what Mr. Polanski did and what she called “rape rape.” And there was Bernard-Henri Lévy, the French celebrity intellectual, allowing as how Mr. Polanski, 43 at the time, “perhaps had committed a youthful error.”

Harvey Weinstein, the American movie producer, did Mr. Lévy one better with the phrase “so-called crime” to describe the act of unlawful sex to which Mr. Polanski pleaded guilty, and then Mr. Weinstein, in all apparent seriousness, told The Los Angeles Times that “Hollywood has the best moral compass.”

You could almost hear the sound of a million foreheads being slapped.

You could almost hear the sound of a million foreheads being slapped.

LOL, exactly. The best quote is "Hollywood has the best moral compass." Harvey Weinstein is a pip.