Jump to content
Thailand Visa Forum by Thai Visa | The Nation


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6,949 Excellent

About heybruce

  • Rank
    Titanium Member

Recent Profile Visitors

13,539 profile views
  1. The girl's attorney arranged the plea bargain, both parties believed the judge would accept it, but I've found nothing that indicates the judge ever did. His lawyers would have had no trouble getting the plea bargain confession thrown out of court. He then would have been tried based on the evidence that motivated him to accept the plea bargain in the first place. BTW, your "50 year" claim doesn't agree with the judge's statement on the matter; he would have accepted 90 days in jail then deportation: " I then stated that an appropriate sentence would be for Mr. Polanski to serve out the remainder of the 90-day period for which he had been sent to Chino, provided Mr. Polanski were to be deported by the Immigration and Naturalization Bureau, by stipulation or otherwise, at the end of the 90 days. I expressly stated that I was aware that the court lacked authority to order Mr. Polanski deported directly or as a condition of probation. However, based on the facts before me, I believed that the safety and welfare of the citizens of California required that Mr. Polanski be kept out of circulation for more than 90 days. However, since Mr. Polanski is an alien who had pleaded guilty to an act of moral turpitude, I believe that the interests of the citizens of California could be adequately safeguarded by a shorter jail term if Mr. Polanski would thereafter absent himself from the country.[32] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case
  2. How many rich people do you know doing long sentences? Madoff is the only one I can think of, and he was guilty as hell. Somebody dirt poor with an incompetent public defender might accept a plea bargain when innocent. Rich people don't do that. Regarding strong evidence, I've explained it many times--he plead guilty, he fled, he won't come back for a trial that would be an easy victory for him if there wasn't strong evidence. To my knowledge not even Polanski denies having sex with the child.
  3. If I was charged with a disgusting crime I didn't commit, I'd fight it in court. Especially if I was like us, but with lots of money.
  4. " He also doesn't Plead Guilty if they have a strong case against him either. Why would he or anyone else do that? " Are you asking why he wouldn't accept an incredibly generous plea bargain offer when the case against him was strong? Do I really need to explain? Once again, I'll anticipate your reply. The prosecution offered him a very generous plea bargain opportunity because they knew that a trial against a high visibility rich man would drag on for months, be very expensive, be disruptive to other work the courts had to do, and would be hard on the child. These are the common sense reasons that you can't seem to accept. It's also likely that Polanski had influential friends pressuring the prosecution to find a quick way to make the problem go away. However the judge, possibly under pressure not to let the rich man off easy after a repulsive crime, chose not to honor the plea bargain. Judges have that right. Polanski, faced with a trial that he was unlikely to win and the possibility of a long prison sentence, chose luxurious exile. He wouldn't do that if the evidence against him wasn't strong. You seem to be the only person who thinks maybe he didn't commit the crime.
  5. Goldbuggy's argument (sometimes) is that the case against Polanski is weak. Rich people with good lawyers don't run away from weak cases, and certainly don't agree to jail time and the lifetime stigma of being a child molester. They go to court and make the weak case fall apart.
  6. So you think a rich man with expensive lawyers will agree to 90 days in jail and the permanent stigma of being a confessed child molester when the case against him is weak? What planet are you from?
  7. Huston didn't notice any sign of trouble? "Geimer was quoted in a later article as saying that Huston became suspicious of what was going on behind the closed bedroom door and began banging on it, but left when Polanski insisted they were finishing up the photo shoot.[14] "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there."[15] In a 2003 interview, she recalled that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and described how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this".[16] Geimer testified that Polanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a quaalude,[17] and despite her protests, he performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex acts upon her,[18][19] each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.[12][20][21][22] Although Geimer has insisted that the sex was non-consensual, Polanski has disputed this.[23][24]Under California law, sexual relations with anyone under the age of 14 is statutory rape.[25] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case On top of this, he plead guilty and ran away! A rich man with expensive lawyers doesn't do that when the case against him is weak. Are you once again suggesting he is innocent? If so, why won't he and his expensive lawyers come to the US and have their day in court? You also seem to be back to the "she wasn't a good girl so what's the big deal?" argument. That is sick.
  8. No, he just plead guilty then ran away. Nothing suspicious about that. Edit: I'll anticipate your reply and offer an alternative: He was released on bail and ran away because he was confident he would lose his court case (even though you insist the case against him was weak). Again, nothing suspicious about that.
  9. " With all these experienced and expensive Lawyers working for Polanski, and advising him, who do you think advised him to leave town in a hurry? " The expensive lawyers who knew the evidence against Polanski was overwhelming and a favorable trial outcome unlikely. Duh! Of course this doesn't fit in with your insistence that the case against Polanski was weak.
  10. What would you do....

    Interesting story about how investing in real estate can go wrong, and how the judicial system won't be your friend. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30324659 I suggest keeping your savings out of the country, and use an ATM for the daily expenses, at least until you know your way around.
  11. "An academic forum, not a military camp" Maybe it loses something in translation, it seems like an unnecessary statement of the obvious. However it definitely doesn't seem like grounds to arrest five people.
  12. What would you do....

    Without an education your legal work options in Thailand are limited. I have no experience starting a business in Thailand, all I know is that it generally involves a Thai partner and you have to know both your partner and what you are getting into. I don't know what is involved for a foreigner to legally own rental properties, but even if you can do so legally you will find it difficult to acquire $300,000 worth of properties with a ROI that will allow for a comfortable lifestyle. No doubt people will now insist they easily get double-digit ROI after all expenses are included on every one of their rental properties, I suggest a healthy degree of skepticism. You also need to remember that just because you like Thailand now doesn't mean you will like Thailand 10, 15, or 20 years from now. The culture is constantly evolving, not to everyone's liking, and the political and economic future of this country is unknowable. If you invest most of your savings in Thailand then later decide it's time to go, you could have a problem. I have no suggestions, just wanted to pass on a few warnings.
  13. Common sense? Is that what you think your casual attitude to sex with children represents? However perhaps we're making progress. It seems you have abandoned your argument that the plea bargain offer was proof of a weak case, abandoned your insinuations that sex may not have happened, and abandoned your insinuations that the child was a bad girl so having sex with her wasn't such a bid deal. Now you insist rumors that the judge planned to reject the plea bargain is justification for Polanski's run. Of course even if the insinuations were true, it is not justification for refusal to return and face a trial. If one side does not honor the plea bargain agreed to, the other side can withdraw from the agreement. If the judge's plan to sentence Romanski to 50 years were true (evidence was second-hand at best) then Polanski's lawyers would have had many options to object and possibly have the entire case dismissed. Polanski is still rich and no doubt is consulting with expensive lawyers. I suspect the lawyers are telling him to hold out for dismissal of charges, because if it goes to trial he probably lose and go to jail.
  14. "Do I think he would have received this offer if there hadn't been sufficient evidence to convict him?" Yes, I do. Yes, of course they would. They would do so to save time and money. Prosecuting a high visibility celebrity is expensive. And they would do it to spare the child the ordeal of a trial. "I don't think So! I know So! That he would never had been given this or any other Plea Bargain, if they had enough evidence to convict him! Why would they? " No, you don't know. They would do so for the reasons stated above. "They only offer a Plea Bargains when they are unsure or don't think they will be getting any conviction at all. That is the whole point of "Plea Bargaining". " And you know this because....? "Which is to say I believe he has recieved enough punishment for his crime, regardless if he did it or not. That it is time to move on already. " Obviously I, and the state of California, disagree. He raped a child and ran away. He can either face justice or run for the rest of his life.
  15. The counter-protesters weren't protesting against Trump (at least not until he stuck his foot into his mouth, again). They were protesting against fascists. Remember the fascist? The swastikas, Nazi salutes, anti-Semitic chants? The removal of a statue was the pretext for the protest, but once the fascists arrive little was said about statues.