Someone here had to say something, but nothing apt came to mind. So I find myself quoting someone unlikely (although I did like Rush Hour):
People are defending Roman Polanski because he made good movies 30 years ago? Are you kidding me? Even Johnny Cochran didn’t have the nerve to go, ‘Well did you see OJ play against New England?’”
Andrea adds: Indeed. However, I did not realize that The Pianist (2002) is Roman Polanski. Most unfortunate, as I love that movie. It’s not a reason for Polanski to be acquited or to go unpunished or to justify his actions, though, which seemed to be lost on many in Hollywood.
Brigitte chimes in: I must admit I never really knew what had happened, until now. Yesterday I saw a clip of Dennis Miller and he said something to the effect that you shouldn’t really say anything about the case unless you’d read the transcript of the victim’s testimony. I found this excerpt here and a longer version here. You know what I don’t understand? Why just about all the news stories you see about this case these days talk about the girl he’s accused of “having sex with”? If her 1977 testimony is true (and as far as I can tell nobody says it isn’t), “having sex” is not what happened. When a girl says NO and sex (both vaginal and anal) happens anyway it’s called rape. She was 13 and he was 43 (or 44; I’ve seen both, not that the difference matters). He belongs in jail.by