A Little Late, Absolutely Devastating

Gee, I guess this makes me the first to comment.

Beats working.

Potently said by Calvin, a master of ironic understatement, here the understatement more than a bit of ironic whimsy, but, rather, barely containing his coiled fury: "He only raped one little girl."

Boy oh boy did the rapist's defenders ever impale themselves on their fatuous self righteousness and preening self importance.

I'd argue they had no moral compass to lose.

Thanks for repeating this.

p.s.

By defending him, the rapist's defenders, the poem says, have evidenced their construction and inhabitation of a inverted moral universe: Celebrities would just be fools/ To play by little people's rules.

More than just defending the rapist, they are, in my court of moral law, complicit in the rapist's breach, guilty of being immoral accessories after the fact.

Me, I sentence them to the ignominy and self revealing ludicrousness of their perfidy.

I want to defend Whoopi a little here, she comes from a community and a time when many of her friends and classmates were mothers at 13 and 14 years old, she grew up in it and accepted it as natural. Yes, you can argue she should have transcended that thinking (and she is flat out wrong in her belief it was anyway consensual) but it isn't as easy as people who grew up in viable, working communities and families seem to think it is. Her own daughter got pregnant at 15 and had the baby.

Before we get too high and mighty on this topic, it might be good to fact check and see what age Mary was when God Almighty 'came upon' her and got her with child Jesus. That act has been featured in Hollywood a lot, and no one complains of the Almighty's use of that minor girl for his own purposes.

blackton respectfully I reject your defence of Whoopi.

Just for example glance at the entry for her in Wikipedia. She was raised working/middle class--I don't know what her education is--and has had so much experience in the world culminating with her on the view, that she gets from me not an ounce of a pass for her "rape rape" comment. From what I can tell she "grew up in (a) viable, working communit(y)."

Also it is dehumanizing her not to allow to be judged on the wisdom or unwisdom of her utterances. She is more worldy, wealthy and experienced than I am, has done a ton more things, been to a ton more places and has met and dealt with a ton more people than I, and I sure wouldn't want anyone trying to explain me away.

danbd I have to think your tongue is firmly in your cheek because I can't believe you really mean such irrelevant nonsense.

I notice Marty couldn't even post a comment on Trillin's poem without taking the time to suggest that the people who write for "The Nation" hate America.

irony you may be right and be reading his post better than I did.

I thought "our nation" referred to "TNR nation" so to speak. If he means what you think he means you are quite right to call him on it.

Why doesn't he take a moment to clarify that he surely didn't mean America, if he surely didn't?

I thought it meant the Nation of Hollywood, which has vociferously defended Polanski.

The first "Nation" is capitalized, so he means the journal; the second is lower case, which seems to mean the United States.

I think I read it correctly, but if I didn't I'm quite prepared to apologize for my haste and misinterpretation.

Whoopi Goldberg became famous in "The Colour Purple" where she played Celie, a poor and uneducated young black woman in 1930s Georgia who, aged only fourteen, is raped and impregnated twice by a her stepfather. I remember watching these opening scenes in utter shock.

I don't understand why she would try to defend Polanski. I feel sorry for him, but what he did is indefensible. He should have dealt with it long ago, he should have done his time. I remember an interview he did once with Charlie Rose who asked him what he would tell his daughter if she found out about it. She was still a little girl then, and I guess now she would be about the same age as the other girl, old enough to understand the full ugliness of it.

There are , I guess, all sorts of punishments.

When it comes to The Nation, what is it with peretz and his cabin boy kirchick? Is it because Victor N is revered and admired in emeritus while marty is roundly disparaged as a crank? Is it because Katrina VH has presided over the tripling of circulation, eclipsing tnr's one-time status as the liberal magazine of record, thanks to the disastrous administration of that guy with the big head, oh year, Peter Beinart? Is it because Eric Alterman, the unchallenged peretz slayer, works there, still waiting for marty's response to his damning peretz article from 2 years ago? Whatever it is, it sure is tiresome and in an odd way, says loads about tnr's weird obsession with The Nation.

As for Polanski, who gives a f--k about this perv? So he makes good movies. Let him take his hand held camera to his prison cell and he can make one hell of a documentary in about 10 years.

I have a hard time with the glib approach to Mr. Polanski from both sides and Trillin's Trite Tripe only reinforces my annoyance with the moral superiority from both sides. One side granting abolution, the other on the moral high ground asking for eternal damnation when their sexual histories are carefully concealed.

Whenever I hear Polanski's name all I can think about is the brutal murder of his wife, Sharon Tate, at the hands of the Manson Girls. brutal senseless murder that shocked the world. So gruesome that one wonders how a husband would ever recover. In my eyes this has always been worse because Mr. Polanski came to America for all it's greatness and freedom, and we could not protext his family.

Couple this awful episode with his childhood in the Nazi Ghettos of Poland and you realize he was let down by the Polish, the Germans, the Communists.

And Polanski does not claim he is innocent, he has plead guilty. His problem is with the Prosecutor, not the law. I believe he is an honest man who regrets his actions and would serve his penance.

Roman Polanski works in a world of celebrity and enjoys the benefits of that position. But I believe he has seen many evils in the world and has respect for law and justice even after it has let him down so many times.

I hope that the arrest and extradition allows Mr. Polanski to address this matter in the US.

basman, I don't think I am dehumanizing her (I think you mean being condescending), just trying to understand her rationale for saying what she said. In any event, people say stupid things all the time. Yes, I also know that because I like her (I don't agree with a lot of what she says politically, but I think she is a genuinely decent person) i am probably giving her too much of a benefit of the doubt. As to why anyone would stick their neck out for Polanski is beyond me.

blackton:

I want to defend Whoopi a little here, she comes from a community and a time when many of her friends and classmates were mothers at 13 and 14 years old, she grew up in it and accepted it as natural.

g:

Indeed, Rush Limbaugh couldn't have summed it up any better himself. Are you paraphrasing him?

george

MrCookie1
"When it comes to The Nation, what is it with peretz and his cabin boy kirchick?"

Make it two cabin boys.

My problem with the Nation for starters if you really care is that they publish Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch a real antisemitic website that keeps publishing anti-Jewish blood libel allegations.

jackson,

Long time. Yes, I completely agree that Alexander Cockburn is a worthless piece of you know what. I have not read his column since the release of the movie JFK, which took away whatever shred of sanity that sad alcoholic had left. I saw him once at Yale in 88. He was one of the special speakers at some political event and my then fiancee and I went to the post event "mixer". Yeah, right, Cockburn spent the entire time drinking free liquor and trying to put the make on everyone female within a one mile radius.

And yes, he does mingle with anti semites, which is just another knock against him. Why the Nation continues to employ this guy is truly a mystery.

Counterpunch publishes Russ Feingold.

Their animosity toward Obama is almost at the level of the lunatic Right's, moreover.

I'm assuming Feingold isn't on board with that.

CRS9TNR I guess I have a ‘hard time” with what sense I can make of your post above.

Leaving aside whether what Trillin wrote was tripe—he’s no Irving Layton, nor does he pretend to be, but never mind. It is unreasonable to suggest a kind of immoral equivalence between Polanski’s defenders and those disgusted with (1) Polanski and what he did and (2) his Hollywood type defenders of him on the invidious grounds they assert.

A reason why that suggested equivalence is unreasonable is that one the one hand his defenders are stuck defending the following; a 44 year old man, who suffered more than his share of tragedy but was successful and celebrated, gave a 13 year old little girl some portion of a Quaalude, some amount of champagne, then, regardless of her persistent “nos”, ate her out and fucked her vaginally and anally, and then understanding that he may have had to do more jail time than he bargained for, took off and became a fugitive from justice; on the other hand, those disgusted are right to be aghast at what Polanski did and then ran away from after pleading guilty; and they are right to be aghast at those who attempt to explain Polanski away on various terribly misconceived and rather infuriating instances of special pleading such as, for one example, special dispensation because he is an “artist”.

And, as I read it, your basis for equating them: "the other on the moral high ground asking for eternal damnation when their sexual histories are carefully concealed". This is highly absurd. No one is arguing for Polanski’s “eternal damnation”, just his due processing by an American court. And the intimation of pervasive sexual wrong doing—“carefully concealed” at that—is spun out of nothing. All this charge amounts to is an unsubstantiated smear, which is too ludicrous to give offence. Echoing Jesus’s ”Judge not lest ye be judged” and “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” the reductive, absurd logical conclusion of this kind of Jesuitical reasoning is the sheer inability of making secular judgments, both legal and moral.

You refer to Polanski’s tragic past. It can’t be gainsaid. But, against your recourse to it, the administration of criminal justice then, as now, had for its purposes—which included needing to bring justice to bear on Polanski's sexual predation, his rape of the little girl—ways of explicitly taking that past into account spanning the determination of his legal competence to mitigation of sentence. There was in fact a psychiatric evaluation and a plea deal struck that had Polanski getting credit for time served—some 48 days or so—which 48 days or so was going to satisfy his criminal sentencing. Then getting wind of the judge balking at the deal—the judge’s prerogative, which then would have allowed Polanski to withdraw his guilty plea—Polanski took off to where he knew he would not get extradited from. That s the answer to your recourse to Polanski’s tragic past—the administration of justice in its wisdom and sensitivity, for those wealthy enough to avail themselves of that wisdom and sensitivity through good legal representation, made due allowance for it. If he had serve some time with a credit fro time served, he would have been doing very well indeed.

"Why the Nation continues to employ this guy is truly a mystery."

Me too. I'll start reading them again when they stop printing his garbage. They seem to have a weakness for conspiracy theories.

cookie:

And yes, [Cockburn] does mingle with anti semites....

george:

To paraphrase an earlier post of mine aimed at Ginzy:

1]

delineate in some detail what being "anti-Semitic" means

2]

note how close to or far from this description your own political values are with respect to, say, Israel, Zionism and Judaism

3]

demonstrate how your assessment of an anti-Semite, conjoined with your moral and political values, are not mere personal prejudices but reflect the sort of conclusions any rational man or woman would come to if given all the facts about Cockburn's alleged anti-Semitic colleagues

Again, as I noted to Ginzy with respect to the arguments about so-called "self-hating Jews", to understand more fully what being "anti-Semitic" means [re Jews], you have to explore what it means in turn to be a Jew.

And I examined this somewhat in my reaction to Damon Linker's post regarding Norman Podhoretz's book, "Why Are Jews Liberals?":

Norman Podhoretz wasn't born a Jew in a sense that he was destined to BE a Jew....destined to think, feel and behave in a
particular way because this is what being a Jew MEANS. No, he was raised in a particular family, in a particular community that came of age at a particular historical and cultural juncture. He had particular experiences and relationships. Had he been raised by a very different family, in a very different community, at a very different historical and cultural juncture...or had very different experiences and relationships...would he be the man he is today, sharing the same moral and political values, subscribing to the same sense of what it means to "be a Jew"?

And part and parcel to this, of course, we must then ask: IS there a way to know essentially what being a Jew means? Because if we can know this and Cockburn's friends and colleagues are irrationally bigoted against these things then calling them anti-Semites makes sense.

In short, the Norman Podhoretzes of the world [of ALL moral, political and religious inclinations] come to an existential juncture [that others simply do not] where he has convinced himself that questions like this can be answered with a fierce certainty. Not only that, but with a certainty such that, if you can answer them, you have then answered in turn what one must think, believe and do as a true Jew.

So, why then don't we try to establish, in turn, what being a true anti-semite is.

If nothing else I might finally come to understand why so many in here insist that I am one. Because, in all honesty, I don't think that is true at all. I try ever not to be irrationally bigoted about anyone or anything.

george walton
d/a

The defense of Polanski by certain hollywood figures is indeed despicable. But Goldberg is not among the defenders. As was obvious to me from her initial statements, and as she clarified the next day, she was not defending Polanski or what he did. She was trying to establish with accuracy what it was the Polanski was charged with and what he pled guilty to, and then to have the discussion proceed from there. By invoking the term "rape-rape,' Goldberg was, perhaps inartfully, alluding to the distinction between forcible sexual assault, on the one hand, and statutory rape, on the other hand, the latter of which includes consensual sex between an adult and a minor. Both forms of rape are criminal and immoral, but "rape-rape" is arguaby much worse.

Creep George Walton brays:
"delineate in some detail what being "anti-Semitic" means"

This is what every antisemite says these days.

Look in the mirror, creep, and you will see an antisemite staring at you.

I read the thrust of Goldberg's distinction between rape and statutory rape not as clarifying matters for the purpose of clarifying them but as her way of chiming into the theme of exonerating or excusing Polanski *now* on the basis of "it was so long ago and not really so serious".

p.s. When Whoopi days later, the next day, whatever, went on to explain herself, she, realizing what a p.r. bollocks she had made of things with her The View statements on "rape rape", was playing a desperate game of public relations catch up.

Here's the thing Basman -- Whoopie did not say that Polanski should be exonerated or excused because the crime happened "so long ago" or was 'not really so serious." She expressly did say, the first time, that she was attempting to clarify what Polanski was actually charged with and what he plead guilty to for purposes of the discussion. So, with respect, I don't see how you can read into her statements what she did not say, and read out of her statements what she in fact expressly said. Have you actually viewed the videos of her statements?

dhurtado,

Drugging the 13 year old victim to my mind is just a variation of forcible sexual assault. Although I am not a toxicologist, I suspect that that the Quaalude - alcohol combo (especially via Champagne - if I remember correctly (and i may not) the CO2 bubbles speed the absorption of the alcohol) made the girl less able to resist and hence Polanski was able to use less force. So even assuming your exegesis of Goldberg is correct, it should be considered "rape-rape".

Hershel Ginsburg

Jerusalem / Efrata

humm, you know, in the late 70's, I had a few Hollywood friends, guys who were dancers and they gave me all the dish they knew about everyone in that town. The story I heard about Polanski was this: He was doing the mother and the daughter, at the same time, but the daughter didn't go for this set up, hence the drugs and rape. This must have been some kind of urban legend because I have not read this interpretation at all.
Polanski raped a 13 year old. End of story. He deserves some prison time with a horny lifer as a cell mate. Then he will learn the finer points of what constitutes rape and what doesn't.

Woopie made the distinction between "rape" and "rape rape” in order to make the further distinction between guilt and guilt guilt. To her Polansky may have been guilty but he wasn’t guilty guilty.

I agree with you Ginzy that drugging someone so that her ability to resist sexual advances is impaired constitutes forcible rape. Indeed, the victim apparently testified to the grand jury that the sex was not consensual -- that she said "no" or "stop" several times. Assuming that she was telling the truth, what Polanski did was indeed "rapre-rape." Based on those facts, I expect that Goldberg would agree. But her point during that first broadcast was that neither she nor the others on the panel had the facts. For all they knew it was consensual sex, which is still statutory rape, still despicable, but not the same as a forcible sexual assault.

Witty and pointed post Jack and which just about says it all from the way I see things.

I just watched the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasb7tHv8XU&NR=1) for the first time since I originally saw clips of what Goldberg said--I don't watch The View, and that's a point of pride--and the best you can say about Whoopi is that she is confused, and somewhat all over the place, veering between denying what Polanski did--she says "It wasn't rape"--in one breath and then in another mistakenly saying that what he was charged with was "sex with a minor".

She also says that we look at things differently now then we did 30 years ago, that Europe looks at things differently than how America does, and we have different views of 13 and 14 year old girls these days, and the she *probably* wouldn't want her 14 year old daughter having sex with an adult male.

She is specifically mistaken because Polanski wasn't charged just with sex with a minor, he was charged with all manner of sexual delicts, but pleaded guilty to that charge.

She also was diffident about whether Polanski drugged and raped the little girl. That proposition is no mystery to me. The little girl didn't "apparently" testify as to being done by Polanksi against her will. She did so testify and compelling and concrete testimony it was, with the ring of truth. Polanski has never to my knowledge denied the drugging and the forcibility. If he did I'd like to see where.

I argued with a guy once whether journalists writing about what Polanski did need to say "According to grand jury testimony Polanski did x and y" or whether they can simply say "Polanski did x and Y" without explicitly sourcing all the foundations for that assertion--including her testimony, his non denial over the years, his flight from justice, his plea of guilty--just the way a journalist might say "x murdered y" without qualifying that with a "according to the jury" or " according to the judge". My position was journalists could so say that without “according to".

Goldberg is not a lawyer and she admitted that she didn't know all the facts, even saying something to the effect that "maybe someone will tell me in my ear." She was mistaken in much of what she said, including her understanding at the time that it was not rape because the girl was "aware" and the family was "aware" (in which case it would still be, at minimum, statutory rape). She was also mistaken in her belief that Polanski was not charged with rape. So she didn't know what she was talking about, and her point was that none of panelists did, and that before they "bitched" about what Polansksi did they needed to figure out exactly what it was that he did. At least in the portion of the clips I have seen, she was not defending Polanksi. She could not do so because she admitted was not sure what he did.

As to this:

"She also says that we look at things differently now then we did 30 years ago, that Europe looks at things differently than how America does, and we have different views of 13 and 14 year old girls these days, and the she *probably* wouldn't want her 14 year old daughter having sex with an adult male."

I don't see that on the clip you linked to or any other clips I have seen. If she was equivocal about whether she would want her 14-year old daughter to have sex with an adult male, then I think that is weird, but the point about attitudes toward young girls having sex having changed over the last 30 years has been observed eslewhere and, for good or ill, is probably true. Those statements do look more like a potential defense of Polanski, but none of the commentary I have seen was reacting to those statements.

Basman, I am not claiming that Polanski did not do what the girl accused him of doing. I say "apparently testified" only because I have not personally read the transcript of her grand jury testimony.

From my perspective, it is a matter of having appropriate humility about the limits of your own knowledge, especially when you are trying to cause someone else to believe a proposition is true. If you tell me that "x murdered y," I have no reason to believe you unless, first, I trust you, and second, you disclose to me your basis for making that assertion. Did you observe x murder y? Did you observe circumstantial evidence from which it could be reasonably be inferred that x murdered y? Did you observe x confessing that he/she murdered y? Did you observe or do you possess a written confession that you have reason to believe was authored by x? Did you hear statements from others who say they personally observed x murder y? How reliable were those statements? Were they made under oath? If your basis is grand jury testimony, then you should say that to make your assertion more credible, or at least amenable to evaluation. If you add that the basis for your statement includes non-denial by the accused, flight, etc., then that all the more enhances the credibility of your assertion as wel as enhancing the ability of the listener to evaluate the assertion. That is a more credible way to approach than merely making a factual assertion.

...As to this:

"She also says that we look at things differently now then we did 30 years ago, that Europe looks at things differently than how America does, and we have different views of 13 and 14 year old girls these days, and the she *probably* wouldn't want her 14 year old daughter having sex with an adult male."

I don't see that on the clip you linked to or any other clips I have seen. If she was equivocal about whether she would want her 14-year old daughter to have sex with an adult male, then I think that is weird, but the point about attitudes toward young girls having sex having changed over the last 30 years has been observed eslewhere and, for good or ill, is probably true. Those statements do look more like a potential defense of Polanski, but none of the commentary I have seen was reacting to those statements...

Here's a better clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NX_D0Bv9M0

dhurtado

On the journalistic point the issue we mooted was not really a phenomenological one about me believing you when you assert what you claim is a fact. It boiled down to this: it was common ground that if a jury or judge finds x did y, and the determination was not itself controverted by an appeal or even by non appellate denials, a journalist could say x did y without saying “according to”. My argument was that if a journalist can say that in such an instance, why can’t a journalist in these particular circumstances just say, forgoing the "according to", Polanski drugged and raped in ways he did a 13 year old girl given her testimony, his non denial,, his plea to the lesser charge and his flight.

OK. In the longer clip she appears to be saying that maybe what Polanski did is not quite as bad as everyone is saying it is, and that we may have different sensibilities about adult sex with underage girls than we did 30 years ago. I think the latter point is probably true, though it does not excuse what Polanski was convicted of or charged with, nor does it excuse his flight to avoid criminal prosecution. But I see no indication that Goldberg is siding with the Hollywood petitioners who want him to be let off the hook completely.

With regard to the journalistic point, I think it is prudent not to forego "according to" in stating that Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, even in light of the girl's testimony, Polanski's non denial, his plea to the lesser charge and his flight, unless the audience shares your knowledge of those things. A journalist cannot be sure of that. Moreover, I think the audience or readers are entitled to know the basis for the assertion. And if the journalist were sued for defamation, he clearly would need to show that he has/had a good faith basis for making the statement. Why not protect himsef by the simple expedient of saying, "according to X's grand jury testimony, Polanski did Y."

Dhurtado: It's a judgment call of course, but in what you say I still don't see the distinction between an uncontroversial judicial determination obviating the need for "according to" and Polanksi's circumstances not requiring one if you concede the correctness of the first part of the distinction. The defamation point is met by the fact the sources for the assertion exist.

But maybe your right: the first guy didn't buy my argument either.

The reason that a judicial determination obviates the "according to" qualification is that, at least in theory, we regard a judicial proceeding as having objectively determined the truth of the allegation. Though you may regard evidence that you observe outside of court as sufficient for you to conclude that Polanski did X, that evidence would not necessarily be sufficient, or even admissible, in a criminal proceeding.

As to the defamation point, if you don't source the allegations in the publication, then you are inviting a lawsuit. It is best to avoid lawsuits, even though you think you would have a valid defense to it. Wouldn't you advise a media client to source such statements?

...The reason that a judicial determination obviates the "according to" qualification is that, at least in theory, we regard a judicial proceeding as having objectively determined the truth of the allegation. Though you may regard evidence that you observe outside of court as sufficient for you to conclude that Polanski did X, that evidence would not necessarily be sufficient, or even admissible, in a criminal proceeding...

But that's my point: this convention makes an assumption about the solidity of judicial determinations, which, you will know better than most, even when not tested by post determination questions, are fragile, contingent things. Even now the former gold standard for evidence n criminal cases-hair, blood, fiber even finger prints has shown to be vulnerable, not to mention eye witness accounts, especially in comparison the DNA evidence. Add to that jury nullification. We do the best we can with that contingent fragility because we need to, but that doesn't obviate the under absoluteness of the evidence. So if I look at the distinction functionally, I can’t see how all the Polanski factors are any less functionally determinative of a journalistic fact than a judicial determination.

...As to the defamation point, if you don't source the allegations in the publication, then you are inviting a lawsuit. It is best to avoid lawsuits, even though you think you would have a valid defense to it. Wouldn't you advise a media client to source such statements...

Maybe, though I don't very much about the law of defamation in Canada let alone the U.S. But your answer is prudential not principled--with which there is nothing wrong as a matter of cautious advice. But if you have confidence in your sources, then at least in principle you ought to be okay. But I can imagine a situation, to take perhaps too remote an example, where someone is convicted and it is reported as "x did y" without "according to", and then x after gets his conviction overturned. Would there in principle be less liability here than saying "Polanski did x".

If I am beating a dead horse, just let me down easy.

Well, dead horses presumably don't feel anything, so . . . . :-)

I agree that judicial or juridical determinations are far from infallible. I was merely observing why it is often not deemed necessary to qualify an assertion as being merely an allegation when the assertion is supported by a judicial determination. As I said, at least in theory, the assertion has been "proved" to the best of our system's capability. And it has been "proved" in an objective and open manner, in a proceeding subject to public scrutiny. While far from perfect, a judicial proceeding is more reliable than a private individual examining evidence in private and then making an assertion without even disclosing the evidence that he or she is relying on.

With regard to Polanski, I believe that some of the evidence you are relying on is not actually probative. Let's look at it:

1. The girl's testimony: This is by far the most probative of the evidence you cite, because the girl's grand jury testimony was given under oath and was transcribed word for word. But the grand jury testimony would not have been enough to convict Polanski; it was sufficient only to support an indictment. At trial, the girl would have been subject to cross-examination, and her testimony perhaps would have been qualified or even contradicted in part by other people at the party or by the girl's mother, or even by Polanski himself if he chose to testify. It would be up to a jury to decide who is telling the truth based on the jury's observation of the actual testimony and consideration of other evidence that either corroborated or undermined the girl's testimony.

2. Polanski's non denial: In what context did he have an opportunity to deny the allegations? There was no trial. In the press? Perhaps, but he might have been well-advised by counsel to remain silent with regard to the media. In any event, I do not think non denial would constitute admissible evidence in court.

3. His plea to the lesser charge: ???? How is a plea to a lesser charge evidence that a defendant was guilty of the charges to which he did not plead guilty? In fact, though a guilty plea might or might not be preclusive in a subsequent proceeding as to the charge plead to, a plea bargain is essentially a deal, a "settlement," wherein often an innocent defendant will plead guilty to a lesser charge in return for probation or minimal imprisonment rather than risk a wrongful conviction and a long imprisonment. Given your views about the fallibility of the judicial system, that is something you should appreciate.

4. His flight: I don't see flght as probabive of guilt. Other than the extent to which the flight itself was a violation of a court order, I doubt it would be admissible in a criminal trial as evidence of guilt. Given the fallibility of the judicial system, I would not put it past even myself to flee if I thought I might be subjected to an unfair trial and put away for 30 years for something I did not do. In Polanski's case, my understanding, and you can correct me if I am wrong, is that he fled after being informed, not that his plea was going to be rescinded and was going to be tried, but that the judge was going to impose an additional term of imprisonment. In that case, while the flight itself might have been violative of a court order, or demonstrative of an unwillingness to take responsbility for his actions, it is not necessarily probative of his guilt.

None of this is to say there is anything wrong with you concluding for yourself that Polanski did everything the girl accused him of in her grand jury testimony. But neither the evidence nor your analysis of it would be as reliable as a properly conducted criminal trial.

On the defamation point, I do not believe one would be subject to liability for defamation for a statement based on a criminal conviction, even if the conviction were later overturned. But what is the big burden in simply saying that X was convicted of Y, rather than X did Y? It adds credibility to the assertion, while insulating you from a defamation suit.

busy and tired give me a bit if time to try and respond.

Just to be clear, the "dead horse", I'm pretty confident you know, is not you--to me you are entirely coltish--it's the sheer and repititive tenuousness of my argument.