Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Liz Smith | 10/05/2009 12:00 am

Liz Smith on Roman Polanski: Formerly the 'Most Detestable Creature Imaginable'

Liz Smith

I don’t know what to say about Roman Polanski.

For years I felt he was the most detestable creature imaginable – drugging and having sex with an underage girl, then fleeing the law. Then about a year ago I saw the HBO documentary on him and it seemed he was railroaded by a really crazy judge and a not-so-perfect Los Angeles prosecuting system. But after that, when he was offered a deal by the very law that had convicted him, he still didn’t come back to the U.S. to face the music. Now – I just don’t know. I see nothing served by his going to prison. On the other hand, even if he is an artistic genius, that doesn’t exactly clear him. And the law is the law.

Read more about: crime, Roman Polanski

42 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Johnette Helms-Buzzell
Part of moving on is seeing her worth lifted by the perpetrator paying for the criminal acts committed against her when she was a vulnarable child.  Then, she will be able to move forward.  This is an act which should have been processed three decades ago and served out at that time. Because it was not, and he fled in such a cowardly matter to foreign soils, this is one of the reasons, the victim feels the life sentence was given to her to hang over her head!  Only until Polanksi is incarcerated, paying his debt to her and society with the loss of his freedom and being held accountable for the pain and suffering he inflicted upon her, will she truly be free to "move-on"! We and our society owes it to her by upholding the very laws which were violated to protect her!
By Johnette Helms-Buzzell on 10/05/2009 10:18 am
A R

Send his wrinkled butt to prison. He avoided it by his own choice then, but that doesn’t absolve him now. He could have served his time when he was young, but he chose to take the risk that he’d get caught later.

By A R on 10/05/2009 10:34 am
Paris Libra
Polanski may not have been fairly tried, but was this rape ever disputed?  If not, then what are we debating?  He committed a crime when he seduced, raped and sodomized a 13 year old, then he committed another crime when he fled. The trial wasn’t fair, the judge was a jerk, the prosecutors were unethical….does any of that change Polanski’s crimes?
By Paris Libra on 10/05/2009 10:34 am
Carole Del Monte
If Polanski doesn’t get punished, other vermin will think they have a chance at evading Justice.  Artist?  75 years old?  He committed a heinous crime.  He’s overdue for paying for his actions.
By Carole Del Monte on 10/05/2009 10:53 am
Paul Smith

The liberal left’s hypocrisies are everywhere evident.  The priests and Catholic church have been run out of town for doing the same as Mr. Polanski.  And the courts and prosecuters have been vilified for attacking rape victims for bringing injury upon themselves, e.g. for being where she souldn’t have been, etc.  Now, on this site, there are women who are of two minds about Mr. Polanski’s overwhelming a little girl, aged thirteen, by drugging her, and having his way with her.  What woman with a daughter would be of two minds about this crime ? 

By Paul Smith on 10/05/2009 10:56 am
F Fox

The law is the law is the law. Yes he did the crime but two major features:

1) the victim wants to forget about  it and will not testify, so they do not have a very viable case

2) he was screwed over by the lquestionably competent judge and really the first conviction should be thrown out

and probably the case should be thrown out

Also, he has already served time. So leave the guy alone. His wife and infant were massacred, his victim is now in her 40s and can make up her own mind about forgiveness.

The US has a very vindictive streak toward celebrities. I think everyone should drop it.

By F Fox on 10/05/2009 12:45 pm
Yvonne Faye

Let it go.  Let him go.  My girlfriend got pregnant at fourteen, and no one went to jail for that.

By Yvonne Faye on 10/05/2009 1:28 pm
Merrie M

I read somewhere that a month or so  before Sharon Tate was murdered she and Roman paid a man to be whipped - as an entertainment. I think their lifestyle and attitudes were very strange. Maybe immoral and decadent are better descriptions.

I think he should face the music back in California for the rape he admitted to. And also pay the money he promised to the victim. Very lousy of him not to. 

By Merrie M on 10/05/2009 2:38 pm
Baby  Snooks
You talk about concern for victims and then defame a murder victim?
By Baby Snooks on 10/07/2009 6:31 pm
Merrie M

Hi Baby Snooks

So you think that anyone who gets murdered is automatically a saint, she did nothing in her life which was wrong? 

By Merrie M on 10/08/2009 3:07 am
Baby  Snooks

People who knew her are so offended by this just as they were offended by it 40 years ago - no one is perfect. No one said she was perfect. Or that Roman was perfect. But they know they were not "immoral and decadent."

People who knew him are so offended by this simply because they know that much of what he himself has said, and done, through the years, particularly with regard to Samantha Geimer, were the result of his having "gone a little nuts"  after that phone rang in London.  She has just recently left London to return to Los Angeles. He was preparing to join her - she was just a week or two away from giving birth to their child.  And then suddenly it was all gone. With a phone call.  That doesn’;t excuse his lack of judgement.  But it does put it in proper perspective.

With regard to all of this everyone would do well to read what was written then about the situation instead of what is being written now so to speak. Some really should not speak at all although that of course is their right.

By Baby Snooks on 10/08/2009 8:41 am
Richard Bassett
What excuse could our judicial system possibly use to let his go without serving his sentence, even if he did have their sympathy and the sympathy of the masses? My opinion is moot if I am to believe that the law is the "law" and we are ALL held accountable. There would be chaos if the majority of our personal opinions dictated the desicions of our court system.
By Richard Bassett on 10/05/2009 3:10 pm
Beth Cornell
I have been saying this all over wowowow. He did the crime, he should do the time and also pay in monetary means what he did.
By Beth Cornell on 10/05/2009 6:55 pm
Jeanette Foresta

It is up to the Judge, and God. I would put an ankle bracelet on him so he cannot go anywhere for the rest of his life. Since he has been living it up all these years.

In those days, he was involved with the High Priest Anton LaVey who founded The Church of Satan in 1966 the day he declared God Dead. When Polanski made Rosemary’s Baby he used LaVey as the Devil, but his name was not in the credits, and, or he was angry that he made public secret rituals only satanist was supposed to know about.  Well they had a falling out to the worst degree. LaVey cursed him, and said he would pay ten fold. LaVey was also involved with the Manson girl Sadie (susan atkins) who was a topless dancer, putting her in a movie which she played a vampire with pictures showing her licking a bloody knife which later Susan Atkins admitted in court that she licked the bloody knife that killed poor pregnant Sharon Tate. The book I got that from is Sunrise Over Santa Susana, a mind blowing brand new book by Adam Gorightly which I am still reading. It is very disturbing and he names big stars also involved in the whole scene.

Back then it was usual for drugs and perverted sex parties were the norm. Our morals were not what they are now. We got better I think. Plus he did pay emotionally. Only i don’t know if he is still into the dark side of movies. Rosemary’s baby was the first of movies that delved into rituals and devil worship, and if you remember she had the devils child in that movie.

By Jeanette Foresta on 10/05/2009 11:44 pm
deepti  s

This is so ridiculous! Everyone’s acting as if it were just plain statutory rape, consensual on the part of the minor (as if that would be okay). But first of all, he drugged her. Secondly, even in her drugged state, she tried to push him away and told him no, multiple times. So basically what it was was completely non consensual rape of a child.

 Should he go to prison? Yeah! I hope he’s locked up for the rest of his life, the scumbag!

By deepti s on 10/06/2009 12:15 pm