Talk:Roman Polanski

Possible sources

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Removed external links

PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT IN THIS THREAD (as that will archive it)
Our External links policy is pretty strict; links should significantly add to our reader's understanding of the subject if the article was written at a Featured article level. The following links might be wonderful Reliable sources for the article itself but should be used as sources not as an ever-growing link repositorium. -- Banjeboi

• Roman Polanski bibliography (via UC Berkeley Media Resources Center)
• March, 1977 Grand Jury Testimony of Polanski's victim
• Media coverage of the Polanski rape trial
• Interview with Samantha Geimer
• Roman Polanski site by French writer Alexandre Tylski
• Interview with Roman Polanski (Defunct as of 9/09)
• Watch Knife in the Water
• The Guardian profile: Roman Polanski
• Interview on the Charlie Rose Show at Google video.
• Cinema Retro Presents a Polanski Guide to Urban Living

Photograph at Cannes

Polanski at Cannes image in question

Is it possible to find a picture that does not make Mr. Polanski look as though he has just wet his pants? Oberonfitch (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There are only 3 or 4 Polanski photos uploaded to Wikipedia (all but one is on this page). This photo fits the time period. NOTE: Can't use photos that don't have the right permissions. ... So, pretty much stuck, unless someone comes up with some free ones of him. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The image could easily be cropped to above his waistline. We don't need to see his trousers, and there are probably a good number of people who would prefer not to. ;-) Rossrs (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The image is fine, no cropping needed. -- Banjeboi 21:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sexual assault case summary

Here's my suggestion for rewriting the section. I've tried to stay at a pretty high level on the matter. It's based off of the lede from the detailed article, which is what Benjiboi's revision was also from. I feel it covers the major parts of the case thus far, and strongly pulls the reader into looking at the detailed article ("Hmm, the lawsuit was settled, but how?").

In March 1977 Polanski was arrested and charged with a number of offenses against Samantha Geimer, a thirteen-year-old girl.[39] He was charged by a grand jury with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.[44] Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges.[45] Geimer's attorney arranged a plea bargain that was accepted by Polanski. This deal dropped 5 of the charges, with Polanski pleading guilty to a lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse (synonymous under California law with statutory rape). The arrangement also required he spend 90 days in a state prison for a psychiatric evaluation.

The judge received a probation report and the psychiatric evaluation, both indicating that Polanski should not serve jail time. Despite expectations and recommendations that he would receive only probation at sentencing, the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys" that he would imprison and then deport him.[51][47] Polanski fled to France in February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced.[44] As a French citizen, he has been protected from extradition to the United States.[52] Since then, Polanski has mostly lived in France and avoided visiting countries likely to extradite him.

Geimer sued Polanski in 1988, alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction. The case was settled in 1993. In September 2009 Polanski was arrested by Swiss police because of his outstanding U.S. warrant when he entered the country to accept a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Zurich Film Festival.[55][56] His initial request for bail was refused noting the "high risk of flight" and his subsequent appeal was rejected by Switzerland's Federal Criminal Court.[57][58]

The reference numbers are pulled from Benjiboi's post, and would, of cource, need to be updated. I spot checked a few of the sources, and tweaked things a bit from that. I have not gone through the detailed article carefully, looking for any major points that are missed, but I didn't see any with a cursory glance. I would include a sync tag, just to make sure it gets looked at. The other part is we need to make sure that anything in the long version that's not in the detailed article be moved over to there.

Thoughts on this, and especially alterative suggestions. Ravensfire (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[P77 highlights] Quickly highlighted in green parts to discuss. (1st inaccurate, 2nd the long-standing muddle prison/deport) Further comment later.Proofreader77 (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I read through the source [1] for that first part, and agree. Hmmm, drop the last sentence in the first paragraph, but need to tweak the beginning of the second paragraph.

"The judge ordered Polanski to serve a custodial sentence as a state prison for evaluation. He was released after serving part of that sentence. "

"Despite multiple reports and the victim recommending probation only, the judge suggested to Polanski's attorney's that he was considered more jail time and deportation [2]. Shortly before the sentencing hearing in February 1978, Polanski fled to France in February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced. As a French citizen, he has been protected from extradition to the United States. Since then, Polanski has mostly lived in France and avoided visiting countries likely to extradite him."

:: And there I'm getting stuck - it does get confusing at that point. I think what needs to be said is that the evaluations recommended probation only, but that the judge controversially decided to impose jail time on Polanski. Shortly before the sentencing, Polanski fled the United States to Europe. And then "As a French citizen ..."

I've gotta say - the sub article is a MESS. Duplicate references, non-working references and things not always exactly as the sources would say. Definite BLP concerns in there. Ravensfire (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Found a source and came up with some phrasing. Ravensfire (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Can we replace "dropped" with "dismissed" in the first paragraph regarding charges? "The agreement included dismissal of the five, more serious charges, with Polanski pleading guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse (synonymous under California law with statutory rape)."

I concur that the fact that multiple sources recommended against harsher sentencing needs to be addressed. Oberonfitch (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• There's a few areas where there have been questions/concerns raised about how the 77/78 progressed. We'd be remiss if the existence of those questions wasn't mentioned here. So ...

"In March 1977 Polanski was arrested and charged with a number of offenses against Samantha Geimer, a thirteen-year-old girl. He was charged by a grand jury with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor. Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges. Geimer's attorney arranged a plea bargain that was accepted by Polanski. The agreement included the dismissal of the five, more serious charges, with Polanski pleading guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse (synonymous under California law with statutory rape). The judge ordered Polanski to serve a custodial sentence as a state prison for evaluation. He was released after serving part of that sentence."

"Despite multiple reports and the victim recommending probation only, the judge suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he was considered more jail time and deportation [3]. Shortly before the sentencing hearing in February 1978, Polanski fled to France in February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced. As a French citizen, he has been protected from extradition to the United States. Since then, Polanski has mostly lived in France and avoided visiting countries likely to extradite him. Questions have been raised about how the case was handled and about some of the decisions by the judge."

"Geimer sued Polanski in 1988, alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction. The case was settled in 1993. In September 2009 Polanski was arrested by Swiss police because of his outstanding U.S. warrant when he entered the country to accept a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Zurich Film Festival. His initial request for bail was refused noting the "high risk of flight" and his subsequent appeal was rejected by Switzerland's Federal Criminal Court. Polanski is currently in jail in Switzerland, waiting for the official extradition request and hearing."

Obviously refs need to be added for anything that might be controversial (if it's been discussed here, probably needs a cite). I left the link in for the one I used for the judge talking about more time/deportation. The last sentence will help bring the reader to the hear and now. Busy all tomorrow, so hope to see a good summary in here next time I check, and the start of reworking the sexual abuse article (oh, it's bad, bad, bad in there!). Ravensfire (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see either at the end of the sentence about avoiding countries likely to extradite, or in the following paragraph where he is arrested in Switzerland, that he owned a chalet there, and had come and gone from Switzerland repeatedly without arrest. As for the sexual abuse article, I'd probably have apoplexy if I went over there. Perhaps when I am feeling stronger....Oberonfitch (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha..me too, thanks for teaching me a new word, Apoplexy Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. FWIW, I would leave all the "extra" references for now unless they are simply irrelevant to the content. The main article on this case is a big mess so for our readers' sake I would prefer to leave extra resources for them as to this content. It's reasonably well-written and in a contentious area so extra sourcing is provided. We can always remove them when things die down a bit if we still feel the need. Another option, of course, is to combine several into one ref if it's simply a matter that one ref at the end of a sentence looks better than four, etc. -- Banjeboi 00:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The version of the entry before the NPOV dispute handled this topic, without the errors being rediscovered.

1. The 90 day 1203.03 diagnostic evaluation was initiated under statue at the discretion of the judge, under the authority given to Judges. It was never part of a plea bargain or condition thereof.

2. The plea deal only included dropping of charges if Polanski plea guilty AND was sentenced period, full stop. There are no other plea deals, anything else being asserted is not within the court records. Discussions in chambers with a Judge are off the record, and used as posturing by officers of the court. It only counts when done in public court.

3. The charges would have been dismissed, they have not to date. Because Polanski fled country, he actually fled on the plea agreement, and all charges remain unsettled. If they sentence Polanski on the plea deal the others will be dismissed. But as Wells said for the documentary, when he fled he threw everything out the window.

4. Polanski lost the civil case, which is removed in the versions above, and he agreed to give her half a million dollars, which is significant...why removed?

6. The 90 days was not a sentence, and he was not released from sentence. He officially is waiting for sentence.

7. Saying questions have been raised about the case and judge is pretty dam obvious, a real waste of a Precious line, consider the details I added about the judges removal and why, fully sourced, was removed.

Somehow I think the hexagon is a poor reinvention of a working wheel. We had a fact checked, contemporaneously discussion pounded out version. A single handed ambiguous NPOV orchestrated its deletion --Tombaker321 (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment re: 3 (above). Wells has already been dismissed as being a liar. His legal opinion, given either his stated illegal participation in the case, or his withdrawn statement of participation, cannot be considered. You may well be right that the whole case begins again, but that is conjecture. It appears that the case may need to be prosecuted without the victim's testimony. What you have offered above is legal opinion on a number of matters. A simplified article is appropriate until the case unfolds further. Oberonfitch (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sexual Assault: adding Nastassja Kinski info

I wrote the following edit for the Sexual assault section.

While Polanski was involved in a romantic relationship with the 15 year old Nastassja Kinski, he was arrested in Los Angeles for the sexual assault of Samantha Geimer, a thirteen-year-old, on March 11, 1977.

I wrote the following for the reasons why. (Added Polanski’s POV about sexual relationships with young women. Polanski was involved with Kinski before and after the arrest. This relationship was well documented by the press during the times.)

This edit was undid by Alandeus, with the following reasons. (That part of the story belongs elsewhere)

My inclination is to re-insert this edit

1. As I believe it conveys Polanski's POV and gives a defense to why he thought it was OK to have consensual sex with a 13 year old.

2. The facts of the edit are not disputed.

3. Being engaged in sex with a 15 year old was legal in France.

4. It shows that his engagement with Geimer was not a one off situation.

5. Kinski would later join Polanski in press conferences (1979) regarding Geimer, and gave interviews defending Polanski actions.

6. It is reflective of the responses given by Polanski after his arrest. (i.e. claiming he did nothing wrong etc)

7. The reactions by the public took into account his well reported relationship with Kinski

I would like feedback in talk, before I do another edit on this. Thanks --Tombaker321 (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not me, as you say, you believe it conveys polanski's pov...also it is nothing to do with the sexual assault. Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Its more about rape, then it is about the age of the victim. Didn't the arresting officer note how nervous he was? Does anyone believe he did not think what he was doing was wrong? I don't see how mentioning someone else who was a bit older matters in this case. Dream Focus 15:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nervousness when under arrest is not an indicator of guilt. You can use his plea, but you can't use his nervousness which, in my opinion, was a perfectly normal reaction, and is probably common to most of the population except recidivists. And, no, I don't think he believed what he was doing was wrong at the time. Not that it matters a bit. And, although you were not here, DF, when we had the witch hunt involving Kinski, Huston, Nicholson, and every creative who signed in support of Polanski, I remain opposed to the naming of names just to bolster the case of wickedness and licentiousness in the creative community.Oberonfitch (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to feedback so far:

1. Polanski only pleaded guilty to sex with an under 14 year old girl. He also said it was consensual. So this more relates not to all the charges against him which he first plead not guilty, but to why he plead guilty to the single charge. That he was in a current relationship with a girl in France, yet underage in by California laws goes to show his state of mind. His actions reflect his POV.

2. This is a better entry than comments by Vannater, his actions show......much better than an appraisal of his mindset. If we are not going to include the Vannatter remarks, I would likely to concede the need for this edit based on feedback. If the Vannater remarks are to be used, I will strongly argue this language of this relationship in the alternative.

3. Kinski is an exception to all the others, because this is whom he had an ongoing relationship with. As the Prosecutor raised in court. She was at the Press conference with Polanski near the time their relationship ended in 1979, when Polanski said he would come back to face the sentencing.

4 The relationship with Kinski as his direct and after the fact actions, reflect what Polanski used as Defense prior to use of the Plea deal. There were many remarks in the time frame between charges and the ultimate plea deal. Kinski was the woman he was with during this time. Here age in California was illegal, though not in France.

Summary, without the need for Vannater's appraisal of the inner thoughts of Polanski (they are not in the current version), it will be sustained that this area of information will not be in the Sexual Assault section. However if Vannater's remarks are offered for inclusion, I would then strongly go back to the need for these first hand actions rather than a 3rd party's subjective appraisals. The rational for showing Polanski's POV via his actions, is much stronger than an interested 3rd hand parties guesses 30 years after the fact. NPOV benefits from showing Actions instead of Opinions.

More comments on this are very welcome. Thanks --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. IMHO this brings up a couple points. Presently that content goes to the sub article - actually it sounds like it must be there. Likewise add more context if this sort of thing was relatively common in his circle. As presented above is too compacted and feels wedged in, understandable but counter-productive. If this relationship was indeed covered by reliable sources as relative then we should state that rather than just that it existed, in this way we show its notability. -- Banjeboi 21:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired

I think a sentence about this documentary should be included. Something like - Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, a 2008 documentary about the legal case, alleged "judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in the handling of [the] conviction" and won both a Sundance and Emmy award.(2008 Film Plays Role in Polanski Case) It may also make sense to cite how it re-ignited interest in his case or that it is currently cited in the appeals process. Obviously the sub article can include more but I think it's relevant enough to mention here. Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 23:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The awards imply the documentary was not controversial for its content, which was disputed by the LA Judicial Branch, in letters to HBO. Others suggest it was cherry picked information, dwelling on making the Judge look like a buffoon. (e.g. Not stating Rittenband graduated at 19 from New York University law school, then Harvard summa cum laude) Simply said, the award comments are not needed. So I can see the following for inclusion.

In late 2008 a documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired was released about the legal case, alleged "judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in the case's handling post conviction."

I would also suggest the possible inclusion of a line like:

"The interviews from this documentary were later used in Polanski's 2009 court motion asking for dismissal of the case" --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I added the low sales comment as the NYT noted it as relative, likewise the awrds which help explain why a box-office bomb had some surprising impact. Current:

“ Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, a 2008 documentary about the legal case, alleged "judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in the handling of [the] conviction"; the New York Times noted it had low sales but won both a Sundance and Emmy award and re-ignited interest in the case.(2008 Film Plays Role in Polanski Case, Waiting to come in from the cold) Interviews from the film were also cited in Polanski's 2009 court motion asking for dismissal of the case. ”

Does this get us closer? -- Banjeboi 21:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying as a broad generality (where the prosecutorial part, i.e. Wells, is no longer applicable) is not, I say, the way to "package" the info from Gunson and Dalton. Whether it can be used as I would like may require verification in other forums. (But have confirmed doc is RS secondary at RSN - may be quoted or summarized). Proofreader77 (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, that pushes it all the way out.

1. The documentary was not about the legal case, it was about Polanski, and included the legal case. Much is talking about his wife, Poland, has clips of his movies. The entire "Desired" portion is not about the case.

2. The documentary is not alleging anything. It is supposed to be demonstrating what happened. Some of the interviewees make those allegations...his lawyers. If you wanted to say Polanski's lawyer's gave interviews that allege judicial and prosecution misconduct, that would be accurate. But its second hand. Why not just make those assertions on what Polanski's attorneys did when they filed motions. (My suggested sentence above I see has the same problem I am raising here)

3. The awards given to the film are of no matter, and only confuse. It needless give the reader the impression that the awards give greater merit to biases of the film. It is already know that the many of the people who vote for the awards are the same people who signed the petition for Polanski. The wiki reference for the film itself does talk about the awards.

4. If you want to say that the Documentary became the impetus for Polanski's lawyers to file motions with the court, that is fine.

My best take at doing what your are trying is " In 2008, a documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired was released about Polanski,his life, the sexual assault case. Interviews from the film were later used by Polanski's lawyers for a motion to dismiss legal case against Polanski. Those motions were rejected, and are currently being appealed. "

Only thing that needs communications, if that, is the interviews from the documentary ignited legal motions by his lawyers. His lawyer gives the biggest interview in the film, FWIW. --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

re: 2 "second hand" - Disagree, but generally propose that (Tb321 v P77) disagreement's which other editors here can't resolve, be presented at appropriate noticeboard where more eyes can help determine legitimacy of either perspective with respect to WP policy rather than personal theories of inclusion/exclusion. * For the moment I present this response to a question I raised at WP:RSN, and note that W&D conveys parts of the timeline previously unavailable via description by some of the key participants. How usable to be clarified. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

Now that some of the mystery has been sorted I've added what I think is some relevant and NPOV content adding some context of Polanski's actions. That he was on assignment for instance seems quite relevant and that he had many casual sex relationships with teenage girls also seems like it should be mentioned. I've boldly added this while removing the NPOV tag and archiving the growing mountain of words that didn't seem to be making anything clearer. Of course anyone can re-add the tag but with appropriate and, of course, on point and concise points of content they feel should be added, changed or removed in it's own talk section. -- Banjeboi 22:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

the real reasons for the plea bargaining

It mentions that he plead not guilty, but didn't list why he changed his mind. He originally rejected any plea bargain, then his lawyers saw the evidence of the girl's panties, proving sex had happened. It currently reads In an effort to preserve her anonymity, Geimer's attorney arranged a plea bargain which Polanski accepted, and, under the terms, five of the initial charges were to be dismissed. They weren't preserving her anonymity since everyone knew her name, the foreign reporters stalking her and publishing pictures of her everywhere in the European news media. Both the panties, and mention of the harassment by the reporters, was mentioned in the documentary Wanted and Desired. So there should be some rewording to make it accurate. Or perhaps to protect her anonymity in America, since going to trial would reveal her to more harassment this time by American reporters, her lawyers offered a plea bargain. Dream Focus 16:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The current wording is based on ref. But yes, "Wanted and Desired" tells more: Silver initiated idea (stated reason was anonymity); both prosecution (did not fit policy) & defense (no sex evidence at that time [aside: rape exam had been negative]) first rejected plea idea; then panty stains found + analysis; Dalton ready for plea; Gunson goes along (accepting lower plea than policy, note: victim's attorney wants no trial). See Silver's comments 00:50:55+ ("anonymity") and in court 00:56:27+ "A stigma ..." ... i.e: "anonymity" was stated reason. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(smiling) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(If above refers to my message) Seeking clarification for assertion of OR (to advance a position) in this instance. I have been informed that W&D is RS secondary. If summarizing from W&D as ref, "anonymity" would still be stated basis of attorney Silver (as current print ref says). That said, the implications of "advances a position" is certainly a key idea that must be addressed in this article's editing—but would add that my focus is more on making sure that timeline information supporting Polanski's defense is not excluded. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Find a source with a timeline (or the timeline asserted by his defense), otherwise there is too much likelihood of drawing an OR (or worse) slant/take/outlook in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The documentary is the source for the description of the missing parts of the timeline as described by the prosecutor Roger Gunson (in concurrence) with defense attorney Douglas Dalton. No previous source contained those parts (re: in-chamber discussions prior to in-court events). Will stop there for the moment, other than noting the unique character of this particular situation. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's all that unique, but it is WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(smiling) It's unique to not-nearly-so-wiki-experienced me. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)