Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I was going to further deconstruct your sad little argument but you haven't even the BASIC FACTS of the case right.

Statutory Rape is still the only thing he ever plead guilty to. Statutory Rape is still the only thing the police thought he did when their investigation was complete. Statutory Rape is still the only charge the DA's office didn't drop against him. Statutory Rape was all that psychiatric assessment said he was guilty of.

These were all people who reviewed and studied the case very thoroughly.

People want Polanski's head because he's perceived as some arrogant European film director.

This is a culture war thing. You may disagree, but that's what I think.

P.S. I just want to clarify that I think what he did was still illegal and Polanski, like all others, should have to account for his crimes. But I don't think he'll ever get a fair trial here. People just screaming RAPE, RAPE, RAPE; SNOTTY EUROPEAN MOVIE DIRECTOR, SNOTTY EUROPEAN MOVIE DIRECTOR and he gets 25 years to life.

I just can not abide by that.

If I felt he were to be given a one or two year sentence, then i'd support his extradition. Since I believe he's being brought back for nothing more than a puritanical witchhunt (also to bolster a DA's future political prospects) where our holier-than-thou message board Holy rollers will refuse any mercy and will demand that the book be thrown at this aloof Frenchy film director then I want him to stay in France.

There will be no justice administered in this case. I don't believe in lynch mobs. Not even for Roman Polanski.

People are allowed to defend whomever they want, but you're doing a pretty good job of disregarding facts yourself, since all that crap about meeting the girl while she been at various parties at Jack Nicholson's house ALL WEEK doing cocaine and God knows what else is a lie, nowhere in the records, nor is the version told by neither the girl NOR POLANSKI.
And actually, if you've seen either one of them talking about the case, their versions are not that different: He knew her mother superficially, he asked if he could take some pictures of the girl for a fashion magazine, and on the second shoot, where it all happened, they where drinking champagne and he gave her part of a quaalude. She told him she wanted to go home at a certain point, he made advances, she said no, and then, according to her own words "decided to go along with it, cause she figured she would go home later on".
Now, Polanskis version trough the years doesn't exactly deny pratically any of this, and the sad part is, I'm sure in his mind it was consensual, since she wasn't putting up a fight. Saddest part about this whole mess is that a lot of people also seem to think that way, even to this day – that rape is only that violent act that happens to strangers in a dark alley. A lot of people really seem to think that a 13 year old girl (whose age he was aware of, by his own admission) who was alone with a 43 year old man in a powerful position and had been drinking really CAN consent to anything.

And according to the original prosecutor, the girls attorney, and Polanski's own attorney, the main reason to a plea bargain was to try to protect the girl of further violation by avoiding trial. Even in that "Wanted & Desired" documentary the DA didn't seem that happy with how lightly he was going to get off.

She was also at the police station with her mother present. Would this be the first time a young girl exaggerated a rape to cover up for the fact that she had sex with someone she later regretted having sex with?

After all, hadn't she been at various parties at Jack Nicholson's house (where it occurred) ALL WEEK doing cocaine and God knows what else? Isn't that how Polanski first met her?

If he truly plied her with alcohol and then violently raped her at 13, why did the prosecutors drop all the charges except for the sex-with-a-minor charge? The police investigating the case, and privy to all information, seemed to think it was just statutory rape.

Second, if such a rape truly happened would the girl be so eager and public about forgiving someone who did this awful thing to her?

All together now: Polanski never pled guilty to rape. He has always VERY STRONGLY denied that he raped her. He claimed it was consentual sex. It's still statutory rape, and illegal, but he's never conceeded the point you are making.

The problem I have with this story is how people refuse to think about this case reasonably and rationally. They refuse to be fair about it. It's all knee-jerk reactions. It's the kind of thing you'd expect from the FOX news crowd who aren't interested in listening to all sides of the story. They just attach themselves to a mantra and repeat the mantra over and over again.

I'm sickened by people's responses regarding defending Polanski, accusing such people of condoning rape of thirteen year olds. What a small-minded argument.

We can't fucking defend people anymore? We're suppose to throw the guy in prison for life because people on message boards scream: RAPE, RAPE, RAPE, and then have complete disregard for facts or differing opinions?

There is no way Polanski will ever receive fair treatment in an American court because of people like this. This isn't justice. THIS IS A LYNCH MOB.

Now this is where people attack me as a mindless supporter of rapists and paedophiles.

(na na na na na na na…na na na na.. na na)

How very tragic for him.

I've lost track of the celebrity support for him; has anyone changed positions recently or is everyone who signed that ridiculous petition still supporting him strongly?

You know she never recanted what she accused him of, she never took back her side of the story. To this day, she clearly states that it was rape. If that is the case, um, that's 5 years at the least, not to mention assaulting someone who was a minor at the time.