The problem with you holier than though people is that you cannot interpret the circumstance from your own limited viewpoint.
Polanski was not convicted of rape no matter how many times you say he was.
He admitted to unlawful sexual intercourse, in a plea bargain to settle this case with the minimum of fuss. Read that as mutual consent , NOT RAPE , as you all so erroneosly suggest.
Until a reporter and, no doubt fed by a DA wanting a reputation, (remember frank costigan), reneged on this deal.
I defy any of you so called experts to determine age from appearance, let alone consent.
Rape occurs without consent i.e . . . . unwillingly.
Get your facts straight before you start to interpret the law.
He fled, because the system screwed him, much the same your limited perspective has.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,26161270-5006336,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,26170802-5006786,00.html

What’d you think the royal commission into corruption, which Atkinson we readily boast is not going to happen, is all about?
The system is corrupt.

Thomasfromthecoma,
I have read enough now to determine that the thing is guilty
I am not interested in all the talk get him to US have him stand trial end of show.

The point of corruption when people stop arguing this and that and say once and for all
Elected members do something about it or next election your not there
Also bring in Citizen Initiated Referenda That would at least put a lttle pressure on the politicians to do something if thier electorate could put them back before the people anytime that they refused to do what people want
Have a good life from Dave

Typical wimpy way out dwg.
The fact that you think there is a democracy in operation in Australia is enough o show your naiveté.
The problem is there isn’t a democracy operating in Australia, and the 2 party systems, whereby a caucus determines agenda should be enough to tell you so.

I'm also having difficulty sorting this one out. I suspect a conclusion would be easier to arrive at if I had a 13 year-old daughter.

Nevertheless, I find some of the attitudes here puzzling.

thomasfromtacoma, you state...

>>Polanski was not convicted of rape no matter how many times you say he was. He admitted to unlawful sexual intercourse, in a plea bargain to settle this case with the minimum of fuss. Read that as mutual consent , NOT RAPE , as you all so erroneosly suggest.<<

Yet it was you who earlier provided the link to the actual grand jury transcript.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

If you read through this to the end, you will find that on a number of occasions, the girl in question says "no".

"I said I wanted to go home"

"No, I think I better go home"

"He reached over and kissed me.And I was telling him 'No' you know, 'keep away'"

"I was just going 'No. Come on. Let's go home'"

"I was going 'No. Come on. Stop it'"

"I was mostly just on and off saying "No. Stop".

And so on...

Does this "read as mutual consent"?

This doesn't resolve the statute of limitations issue, the DA's motivation for resurrecting the case in 2009, the ethics of plea-bargaining or protection from random extradition.

But it does at least seem a reasonably straightforward case of rape, of a minor.

I agree Pericles. While there are issues about statutes of limitations and the why the US government has belatedly decided to pursue Polanski, what is far more worrisome to me is that some people here seem to think that it's OK for him to have had sex with a 13-year old girl and subsequently to have avoided punishment for that crime.

On the facts that have been presented here Polanski pled guilty to the crime as part of a plea bargain, then fled the USA when he thought he'd be sentenced to a term in prison. And on the basis of the girl's testimony to the Grand Jury, it certainly looks like he forced himself on a kid whom he'd drugged deliberately in order to rape.

I honestly wonder how some people here sleep at night.

Thomasinthecoma
It seems to me that you seem to think that it is OK for an Adult male to have sex with CHILDREN
You defend Polanski to no end run people down that say it is wrong
If you are the example of others out there no wonder DoCS and other child safety depts have deaths, abuse, etc in thier agencies

As CJ Morgan Pericles Suzeonline and many others have pointed out The Grand Jury transcripts does not display consent no law gives the right to a 13year old to give consent the Thing admitted it I am no longer going to debate with someone that would try to twist this show to disguise the fact.

With people out there like you no wonder the abuse of my son has gone on the way it has

Thanks to All the good People out there have a good life from Dave