Egotistical slime on display!

BERN, Switzerland — After months of waiting, the Swiss government declared SLIMEBALL film director Roman Polanski a free man, Monday after rejecting a U.S. request to extradite him on a 1977 charge of raping a 13-year-old girl. 

There is little to say other than “BOYCOTT EVERYTHING SWISS!”

No pressure? Read the sign .... she's in front of. Perhaps another HollyWeird wacco?

Samantha, the 13 yr. old victim said she is over what happened and pled for his release.  Somehow, I don’t believe she’s over it – read the sign she’s photographed standing in front of …..

The stunning decision could end the United States’ three-decade pursuit of Polanski, unless he travels to another country that would be willing to apprehend him and weigh sending him to Los Angeles.

France, not particularly known for its’ morality, where Polanski spent much of his time, does not extradite its own citizens.

“Mr. Polanski can now move freely.  Since 12:30 today he’s a free man,” Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf declared.  Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, declined to comment.

Though he was an Oscar-winning director of “Rosemary’s Baby,” “Chinatown” and “The Pianist,” he actually produced only one good film – “Knife In The Water”.

Polanski, 43 at the time of the rape, was defended by many HollyWeird celebrities, even though he was accused of plying his 13 year-old victim with champagne and drugs, during a 1977 modeling shoot (the transcript states he was nude?) before raping her at Jack Nicholson’s house.  

Polanski was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy, but plead guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.

Read more.

About josiahe

Watching closely, working to understand all I may, in this "Age of Information", even from my limited view, I can see much of what's going on ..... and I oft see it's going to impact all of us which is why I share it. My focus is to expose evil, and to serve my Lord and savior Jesus in whatever way He shows me. If one waits long enough, better writers will come along and comment; it's just that I have so little patience with the evil that lurks among us and I've wasted so much time and now, there is so little left! WELCOME!
This entry was posted in a href="">search engine submission, Nudity and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. michellefrommadison says:

    Roman Polanski proves Nancy Grace wrong, again.

    Nancy Grace is wrong for the tenth billionth time.

    Roman Polanski – a Free Man, proves Nancy Grace wrong again. CNN transcripts indicate that Nancy Grace said, repeatedly, that Roman would be prosecuted and will spend the rest of his life in prison, and “never see the light of day.” Wrong, Nancy. At least you are consistent at always being wrong about something of the cases she tries to cover. It’s no wonder why she was thrown out of Atlanta years ago and why she cannot practice Law anymore anywhere within the 50 states of the United States.

    • josiahe says:

      Granted, Nancy, in her overexuberance (sp?) and passion can be a bit much but let’s not get consumed with her wanting this slimeball prosecuted. He pled guilty to one charge and then proved how unreliable he is by running. As for me, myself and I, …. we all prefer passion in a person, especially in a woman. ; )

      • michellefrommadison says:

        If you understood the actual court records of his case and the reasons why he pled guilty, then you would understand why he could never actually be convicted in any court for the alleged offense if it went to trial. Lots of people back then pleaded guilty to charges they were never actually guilty of committing because the risk of trial could not always guarantee the correct result. It also certainly does not mean his guilty plea was an actual admission of guilt to the crime, it only means he pleaded to the best option he faced with that court.

      • josiahe says:

        Nevertheless it does not mean he was innocent either. People still plead out; it has no bearing on whether they’re guilty but one can surmise that there’s enough question to where they take an easy out. I’ve read it. Have you? Why do you defend him if you’ve read it ….. oh; you didn’t answer that yet. : )

  2. michellefrommadison says:

    Nevertheless it does not mean he was guilty either. I have never defended him like you do, I only comment on the facts.

    • josiahe says:

      I do not defend him, never have! He is a scumbag and belongs in jail! Explain to me, if you can, why he needed to be nude to take pictures of a 13 year old girl ….. a minor! We should boycott France and Switzerland.

      • michellefrommadison says:

        Sorry, but non-convicted people are not eligible for jail, or even prison for that matter. 🙂

      • josiahe says:

        He pled (past tense) GUILTY! He ran. He is a fugitive and belongs in prison!

  3. michellefrommadison says:

    He plead only based upon the situation, that does not mean he was guilty of the crime. But, that takes an education to fully understand that. You know, most people later let out of prison by wrongful convictions also plead to the crimes they never did. Thousands. But, again, takes an education to understand that too. Sorry. 😦

    • josiahe says:

      Michelle, Michelle,

      If the slimeball pled GUILTY, what more does one need to know? Technically, he then, IS Guilty!

      Are you sure you want to make the comment about ‘education’? Sounds a bit condescending, nu? You don’t really want to compare schooling, do you? To me, that sounds elitist and arrogant!

      My brother’s a perfect example; he never even graduated high school; he quit to go into the Navy.
      He was a great talker; his girlfriends supported him and he read 12-16 hours a day; when he wasn’t buried in his 2 to 4 books a day, + everything from the SFO papers to technical magazines, etc. He amazed everyone we sat down with, when we’d eat out in the nicest restaurants; he was up to date on the latest developments in every other person’s own field of employment he met.

      He was self-educated and had a need to prove how smart he was. I wouldn’t play his one-upsmanship games; I won’t play yours. I couldn’t be / …. wouldn’t be around him for more than 3 days; our personalities repelled each other! Do we need to get to that point?

      • michellefrommadison says:

        He plead guilty only to limit the possibilities of a wrongful conviction, as is dome every day in the U.S.A. But, without an advanced multi-degreed education you are out of the loop to fully understanding that. Sorry (for you). 😦

      • josiahe says:

        Your phenomenal insight seems to speak of a personal relationship. Tell me, oh wise and intelligent one, do guilty people also plead guilty?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s