Talk:Roman Polanski/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Tate murders - number of deaths (excuse confusion)

Resolved

 – Confusion unraveled

No wonder this is confusing.

• My skimming Wikipedia articles looked like Tate + 3.
• New York Times says Tate + 4 (five people: Ms. Tate, who was eight and a half months pregnant; Abigail Folger, an heiress to the Folger coffee fortune; Jay Sebring, a celebrity hairstylist; Voytek Frykowski; and Steven Parent.
• Time magazine implied 6 "four of Tate's friends and the son of her gardener"
• And the edit summary which helped confuse me was: "updating cite and his comments relating to Sharon Tate's murder, and Tate was one of four victims at the Polanski residence, not one of three.

NOTE: I was responding to the wording of that edit summary which implied the editor and I both agreed there were four total. Will assume New York Times is correct. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. My edit summary was wrong but my edit was right. Tate was one of five. Tate, Sebring, Folger, Frykowski and Parent. Time certainly got it wrong saying Parent was a son of the gardener. He was an acquaintance of the caretaker. Often referred to as Tate and four friends (Tate never met Parent). Not that these other details matter to Polanski. Rossrs (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the confusion stems from the location of young Parent, who was in his car in the driveway and the first to be murdered. The remaining four were initially in the house, although I believe Folger and Frykowski were both found outside. There was another young kid in the gardeners residence who was initially a suspect, and was the only survivor. Oberonfitch (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right - Parent's location causes confusion and his relationship to the victims has often been misrepresented. For the purpose of this article, it's enough to say that Tate was one of five victims at the property. To quickly summarize, Parent was acquainted with the caretaker William Garretson, who lived in a cottage on the property. Parent didn't know Tate or the others and was shot in his car as he was leaving the property after visiting Garretson. The other four were in the house, and were tied up in the living room. Sebring was killed when he tried to defend Tate. Folger freed herself from the rope and ran outside and was killed. Frykowski was attacked in the living room, managed to get outside but could not get far. Yes, both of their bodies were found on the front lawn. Tate was still in the living room, and was murdered there. Garretson, as you said, survived. The cottage was some distance from the main house, down a path and hidden by trees. During the trial it was said that Garretson survived because during the confusion the killers didn't get as far as the cottage, although Manson knew it existed, because he had visited the owner there several months earlier. Not relevant to Polanski, but just to explain. Rossrs (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(Primary) probation officer's report (temp?) blockquote (& NPOV)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Unresolved

 – Current discussion is locked in repetitive unproductive loop filling up the talk page. Broader issue of NPOV balance probably to be continued in NPOVN in due time.

---

I have (perhaps temporarily) added a blockquote to the main article version of the sex crime coverage:

In 1977, Polanski was arrested and charged with several sex and related offenses against a minor—a thirteen-year-old, Samantha Gailey—during an incident the day before at the Hollywood home of actor Jack Nicholson. Polanski's arresting officer would later be summarized in the probation officer's report: Sergeant Vanatter stated, "I have no doubt the events happened." He described the defendant as "extremely hyperactive." He described the victim as looking between 16 and 18 years old but acting only as if she were 13 or 14 years old and, "not really knowledgeable." Gailey testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug, and despite her protests and being asked to stop, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy. A grand jury decided to charge him with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor. . . ....

I understand this will most likely be contentious, if for no other reason than it is too long for the main article (and as WP:PRIMARY cannot be anything but quoted, assuming even that can be justified ... amidst all the screaming of WP:OR yada yada yada. (more later)

Collapse further elaboration of my previous comments on this

Which leads us to the much more complex issue best illustrated by the vast coverage of the grand jury testimony (the prosecution's case in the form of the victim's testimony under questioning). The probation officer's report is much less popular and appears to have (with great trepidation and mentions of how "offensive" it is to readers of our time) only poked its offensive head out of the the New York Times arts blog. Let me not repeat the general case of this complication again, tonight (althoughs ignificant discussion somewhere in Wikipedia should take place) ... other than WP:NPOV is required ... and this odd case of sealed then unsealed documents ... makes for an interesting case study. Bottom line: The grand jury testimony is one side of the case. What he did is "gross" (the victim's word), and "vile" (an artist should have greater empathy not less, and sensitivity for an abuse of power of any kind) ... but perspective is required—a clear conveying of the what happened. Screaming: "He raped a child!" is not telling the truth. He used his force of will to make a young teenager (who looked older, and was about his size) comply with his transient desire. The petition to dismiss highlights a quote from the UK Telegraph that said that at the time he was supposed to be sentenced, no one had been given any jail time for a similar crime in California for the previous two years. Such are points made in WP:Primary documents—other than the grand jury testimony.

Meanwhile: I will seek secondary sources for facts conveyed. For example, the "looking between 16 and 18 years of age" part of the quote was included in a Los Angeles Times article from 1977 (See this Google news archive search) which lists a (pay per view) article: "Mental Tests for Polanski Ordered" (Sept. 20, 1977)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll bite. :) The problem with the addition isn't that it can't be used, nor that you're wrong about using the block quote, but that it doesn't seem to add anything to this article. (Well, that and it is in the wrong spot, but the latter is a minor concern). All that it provides to the reader is that someone on the periphery of the case believed that something happened based on how the two people behaved when approached a day later. Yet we know something happened already, as far as we need to be concerned, because Polanski was convicted. I suppose it also let's us know that the girl appeared older, but I don't think anyone has claimed that Polanski was unaware of the girl's age. Given that we're just presenting a short summary here, it is probably more suited to Roman Polanski sexual abuse case, where there's room for these sorts of secondary details. - Bilby (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  While for conviction of "unlawful sex with a minor", the age is the only thing that matters—from the position of BLP, the fact that everyone (including the judge) affirmed she appeared to be older than 13 makes a significant difference. In reccomending that Polanski not be incarcerated, the probation report includes that fact, for that reason. (Let me stop there for now. :)Proofreader77 (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Suggesting that she looked older than thirteen is questionable on its surface. Because of the Hollywood reverence given to Polanski by the court, psychiatrists and probation officer during all the affairs back then, the court records themselves are questionable to the girls appearance. Indeed the Probation report claims she was physically mature. The problem is the evidence of her appearance is available for the period of time back then. See

http://patterico.com/files/2009/10/Polanski-Victim.JPG These photos show her her to be simply a little girl. These photos were included in the documentary.

http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m2/jul2005/0/7/000F1158-BDB0-12E4-A7580C01AC1BF814.jpg This photo is of her at 13 which was included in a UK Mirror article about here. See http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2005/07/25/exclusive-polanski-raped-me-when-i-was-13-he-is-a-creep-115875-15775812/

Thus if we are to use the probation report for its statement, I would argue we would be better served to look at the source material. The actual pictures of the girl. The Probation Report is a flawed document. See http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1203081roman27.html it states "the victim was not only physical mature, but willing; as one doctor has additionally suggested there was a lack of coercion by the defendant..." From the pictures at the time, you can see she was NOT physically mature, and to suggest there was a lack of coercion by Polanski ignore the Champagne and the Quaaludes that he plyed her with before raping the 13 year old. Please also remember that Polanski during he plea to to the court said he knew at the time she was 13 years of age.

For any suggestion that this 13 year old girl looked anything other than a 13 year old girl, I would want Wikipedia to include the picture of her. The only people that thought of her as older were simply trying to make reason out of why Polanski was having sex with her. Meanwhile the elephant in the room, is this man was sexual attracted to teenage girls.

Also to your rational as to why 16-18 was important because of the defenses analysis that "in a California in which no one had been sentenced to jail for a similar offense in the previous two years" (this is what the defense attorney said they analysized. The problem is that there was no other equivalent case for this case. Nothing was similar. First it was commonplace to drop the lower charges and keep the higher ones. District Attorney John Van de Kamp said at the time that he struck the unusual plea bargain with Polanski because he wanted to spare the 13-year-old girl from testifying during a trial that “could victimize her a second time.” Because of the unusual nature of the plea deal, and keeping the lower charge. There is no basis for the defense analysis of other similar cases, not going to jail time.

Other than using the actual picture of the girl, there should be nothing asserted to make a case for her being anything other than a 13 year old girl. She was not mature. She was not willing. Please look at the picture links above. Your eyes are not lying.

To give this even more context please note the following argument proffered to the court by Polanski's attorney Dalton:

“This particular offense doesn't have the connotation of rape. It's not even an offense, a criminal offense, in about 13 of our states and in many places of the world… this is a crime that's been committed by policemen; it's been committed by probation officers assigned to counsel girls at a detention school; it's a crime that's been committed by people that have a far higher trust to their victims than did Roman Polanski… I feel he is a criminal only by accident; and that there are many complex social and psychological factors that were involved in this situational event which otherwise was a complete departure from his normal mode of conduct.”

I am afraid that the information and arguments in the below "extended commentary" are nothing other than creative justification for Polanski's actions. It is a blame the victim methodology. You want to know what she looked like? See the pictures I have linked above, all the speculation becomes moot. It's not a bird, it's not a plane, it's a 7th grader, for G_d's sake.

She was a child, and the savoring eyes of the molester, Polanski, can not for their wanting, create this 13 year old CHILD to be anything other that what she was, a thirteen old child.--Tombaker321 (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's do this slowly:

1. Do you assert that Sergeant Philip Vannatter (this guy) (later detective, and notable during the OJ Simpson case) was lying with regard to the appearance of the victim? (Or do you assert the probation officer was lying in summarizing his words?). Proofreader77 (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

“ “This man committed a rape, committed a bunch of other atrocities and got away essentially with nothing,” says Philip Vannatter, a former Los Angeles police officer. “And I don’t think that’s right.” ”

P.S. That is the police sergeant who investigated the crime scene and arrested Polanski ... and said she looked between 16 and 18. He is a liar? Proofreader77 (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's get slower still, really slow now. Please read my original reply again. There is no need to make any assertions of lies. You are creating a false dilemma There is no need to try to assess what caused a person to say what, and what biases they may have had in making those assessments. The girl was 13 and the evidence will show she looked exactly like a 13 year old. Here is the evidence, here is the picture of the girl that is used in the documentary, and the promo video you linked. This is what even Polanski most ardent supporters say is what she looked like. Please look at http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pyylukR2xyI/SsJJ8xGmsKI/AAAAAAAAAMQ/MGF1S9ockLc/s1600-h/samantha+gailey+polansky+rape+1.JPG Does that look like an 18 year old to you? Get real. The proof is not in the reading, its in the seeing....LOOK at the pictures. --Tombaker321 (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(continuing item by item—I had already answered them, but decided not to post a stream of argument)

2. Photos are what you see. How tall was she at the time? (Compared to Polanski?) As for what people see in photos, remember the weekend of the Kos rumor about Palin? The photos supposedly proved a rumor—they did no such thing, but people were screaming "Look at the photograph! Can't you see?" No, I didn't see that. Contacted the photographer, he confirmed what I thought. I can see.

What of the above Geimer photo? You need a photo of her beside other people: Something like this. (A sweet-faced photo does not prove she didn't look physically like a sweet-faced 16-18 year old).

(AGAIN)
The police sergeant who investigated the crime scene and arrested Polanski is described in an official court document as saying the victim looked between 16 to 18 (physically). Polanski said she looked older than 13. Houston said she looked older than 13—and said she looked "tall." (Consistent with the full-length photo from the video above, which is only an example of the kind of photo that might illustrate something about the matter at hand)

The judge said: ((source: The Spokesman-Review, 9/20/1977)

“ The probation report discloses that although just short of her 14th birthday at the time of the offense, the victim was a well-developed young girl who looked older than her years ... ”

He said that (and further details) did not matter with regard to the criminal charge ... But it does matter with respect to NPOV of a WP:BLP. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said above the Probation Report is a flawed document as the Judge indicated. The interpretations given in the Probation Report, yes I have read it, are glowing a fawning over Polanski. The author seem truly enamored with Polanski, taking at the very end about forgiveness bases upon his "artistry" by letter he received from around the world. Everyone involved with this case was getting their bread buttered by the Hollywood circles. This was in Hollywood and Polanski was a Director. All indications were that Polanski was given every break in the world. There is nothing Neutral about the Points of View you want to raise. The only reason to suggest she looked older is agenda driven. As I said above, the relationship to what others in California were sentenced to was analysis by the defense attorneys. But nothing about the Polanski case was equivalent to this case, as Van De Camp said. The Polanski case was exceptional in every way, making any attempt to analyze what would be a comparable sentence...folly. Thus the entire premise of your wanting to conclude she looked older is of no importance. Its at least of no importance as to the reasoning you have put here as to its need for inclusion.

Going back to the probation report you want to view as gospel. It also said the following ""the victim was not only physical mature, but willing; as one doctor has additionally suggested there was a lack of coercion by the defendant..." The picture of her at the time show her to be nothing close to physically mature. The probation report says she was WILLING. This conclusion is against all the facts. She plead for him to stop. Yet the probation report says she was willing. How can you want to rely on this. How does this conclusion show its has a Neutral Point of View? Its view is taking the position directly against the Grand Jury testimony of the girl. It calls her a liar in no uncertain terms.

The Probation report says there was a "lack of coercion by the defendant". How is that even possible to conclude without overwhelming bias and sympathy for Polanski, to which it drowns out any semblance of honor to the truth. Polanski drugged the girl and plied her with alcohol, then continued as she protested. Somehow that is not coercion? In what world?

So put the 13 year old child in a Jacuzzi and then take pictures of her as Polanski did. See http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pyylukR2xyI/SsJJySspEhI/AAAAAAAAAMA/Dq6zNHAX9q8/s1600-h/samantha+geimer+polansky+rape+2.JPG Do you think she is a mature 18 year old. Fair game? Really? Make no mistake now, this is the way the child of 13 looked on the day that Polanski anally raped her. Get whatever person to say whatever...but this is it, this is her, this really is the little girl in the Jacuzzi. Polanski raped what you see here, in these pictures, as she was then, there is nothing to interpret, this is her, this is then. This is how she was before Polanski took her

How many more facts do you need before you believe your own eyes? Look at her pictures. She is simply a 13 year old child looking every bit the part. Polanski sexually pursued underage girls, that is well document prior him raping a child in 1977. Given that, you should understand that in no way would have looking 18 been operative for Polanski. Polanski was simply a child predator who sought out to have sex with girls who looked 13. If looked 18 how would you figure Polanski would be attracted to her.

again: this time with more feeling too: She was a child, and the savoring eyes of the molester, Polanski, can not for their wanting, create this 13 year old CHILD to be anything other that what she was, a thirteen old child. --Tombaker321 (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing my own extended comments in the realm of forum

Tall teen. Complied with vile desires of small man (who as a film director held the power to anoint talented people as a somebody) who did something "gross" (her word) to her. Told story to boyfriend, and then, after being overheard by sister, told her mother. Who you tell, shapes what you tell. Grand jury testimony Q. Why do you believe that you were under the influence at that time? A. I can barely remember anything that happened. (sg link) NPOV demands the other side... but only because of those who will not do as the victim has asked, and leave this alone. Polanski did something gross to her, but the media ruined her life, she says. No one should be wading through this, but if it is demanded, then, tell it fairly, even to vile little man who should not have done this. Nor should girls be compliant with vile creatures—especially little ones they could slap or simply walk out the door and yell take me home asshole—if they weren't afraid to make a scene... or maybe mess up a shot to be someone ... and disappoint their mother for having ruined it ... how bad could it be just to go along. That gross. (Let her frame it. Don't force her to think of what happened as the angriest do. Leave her alone. Of course, no one will.)

So NPOV demands a fair telling for the villain. Or the fallen. Clearly we disagree. C'est la vie. WP:Dispute resolution if warranted, but Wikipedia should not be expected to be the realm of "the truth"—simply the current summation of the most persistent ... who can play by the rules. I.E., It is clear that she appeared older than 13. It doesn't have to be in Wikipedia to be true. And I learn much from what people delete. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Summary of issue

• Probation report summarizes investigating police officer's description of the victim's apparent age (between 16 and 18) and behavior (13 to 14). Secondary sources confirm this.
• Some argue probation report is an outrageously biased document (but treat grand jury transcript as NPOV, rather than the prosecution's case: POV)
• One argument against the assertions of the probation report is of the form but this photo clearly shows. Photos make no such clear case, and such interpretation, even if from recent reliable source, would not provide a basis for excluding the description in official documents.
• The matter can be addressed in the appropriate forum if necessary (not this one).
  -- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Summary of the Issue

Photos are the best reflection of what she looked like. No one can really with authority can dispute this. The photo above are first hand, and some of them are seized evidence. The Probation report called the girl "willing", that is not what she testified to in a grand jury, and in every one of her interviews afterward. The probation report is a hearsay document. The Judge who saw all of the information and had everything reported to him, dismissed the probation report calling flawed and "whitewash" All the examples used to suggest that she looked 18 are "interested parties". For example, Angelica Houston, was close friends with Polanski and Jack Nickelson, who's home is where the rape took place. Beyond ALL the pictures of her looking like a 13 year old, no one suggests she acted anything besides a thirteen old. The look of a little girl and how they act, create the perception. The only purpose to try to describe the victim as looking anything different than all the photos of her at the right before the rape, is to try an build upon a defense argument that somehow it was OK for the sex to have happened. And that is what should not happen in a Wikipedia article.

Dalton for the Defense argued this to the Judge. "This particular offense doesn't have the connotation of rape. It's not even an offense, a criminal offense, in about 13 of our states and in many places of the world… this is a crime that's been committed by policemen; it's been committed by probation officers assigned to counsel girls at a detention school; it's a crime that's been committed by people that have a far higher trust to their victims than did Roman Polanski… I feel he is a criminal only by accident; and that there are many complex social and psychological factors that were involved in this situational event which otherwise was a complete departure from his normal mode of conduct."

When the judge did not buy those arguments Polanski became wary of what sentence he would receive. Lastly an most importantly no one, not anyone, nobody at all, suggest that Polanski did not recognize the girl as anything other than a 13 year old. He interacted with her mother prior to the rape. When he plead guilty he said specifically that he understood ON THE DAY of the crime that she was 13 years old.

Putting in some interested parties views of the victim without going to the first had photos, or talking to her friend and family at the time is a way to put forth an agenda besides objectivity. The photos of her in the Jacuzzi show her to be a 13 year old. What you see is what it was, any amount of mental gymnastics and attempts to find justification or fruitless and should not be offered up. Oh and now that I think of it, the victim in her numerous interviews over the years, ever asserted she looked older, than a 13 year old. She had sex once before in her life, so she was not worldly. And again the Probation report which is the entire basis of all the articles you will find, said she was WILLING, nobody believes that. When you discredit a witness on the stand, the jury may conclude that everything they have said should not be given weight, as instructed by Judges all the time. The Judge said the Probation report was discredited. We know it says she was WILLING, but has never been what she has said. You want to give the Probation report much more weight than the Judge who heard everything is willing to give.

Polanski's argument before the Judge was its not a crime in 13 states at the time. Its never been she looked older, or that he thought she was old. Injected that into Wikipedia is inject a conclusion without supporting facts, contrary to the best evidence, (you must use the best evidence in court) which are the pictures, and injection here does nothing besides give weight to a specific agenda.

So my Summary of this issue is slightly different than the above one. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot the other important factor, all the comments about how old she looked came after her rape, after her innocent eyes where blackened, after she had her concepts of the world destroyed, whilst she was in shock. She probably didn't seem as innocent and playful as the pictures of her prior to the rape. So if you really wanted to use here appearance after the rape, you could say that the once innocently happy 13 year old, was torn away, and left with the sad expression unaccustomed for her years, just like every other rape victim. A grim aged shadow of herself. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Alternative summaries are welcome, but the above is not a summary of contention— it is a full restatement of previously asserted position (and WP:SOAP).

Lest the actual contention be lost in soap bubbles, the topic is about a blockquote: (already removed)

“ Polanski's arresting officer would later be summarized in the probation officer's report:

Sergeant Vanatter stated, "I have no doubt the events happened." He described the defendant as "extremely hyperactive." He described the victim as looking between 16 and 18 years old but acting only as if she were 13 or 14 years old and, "not really knowledgeable."

”

All are welcome to compose a different "summary" of the contention in this subtopic—noting that a summary is not a lengthy repetition of arguments already made. Such repetition is off topic for this subsection: "Summary ..."

And as the main topic indicates, the issue encompasses the complexities of primary vs secondary and NPOV That will apparently have to be addressed in another forum than this talk page (in due time).
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry. The summary you gave is based strongly in a your POV. It contains you conclusions and views. For instance your wild assertion that photographic records are not reliable as for proof. We have no knowledge of how much time Vanatter spent with the victim, and to why you give his assessment more credence that the multiple photographs of her at the time. The reason for this entire discussion is because of your following contentions.

---

"Bottom line:As elegantly as possible, the victim's appearing older should be mentioned—not that it is an excuse, but that it makes it more understandable (to many of our outraged eyes) why—in a California in which no one had been sentenced to jail for a similar offense in the previous two years—the idea of probation is understandable (as it clearly was to many of the participants).

I.E., "looking 16 to 18" is not of secondary importance, but primary—something you need to know the moment you see "13"—because the sexual offense was not performed on an abstract number that Polanski knew, but a person appearing older. The medical report read: "Adult female." No she wasn't. But neither was she "Child." Proofreader77 (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [Quoting of collapsed comments of Proofreader77 by Tombaker321] You summary of issue, does not even reflect you hypothesis and contentions which started this.

---

1. Unlike your assertion, she was a child. Period.

2. The arguments for others sentencing is a Defense argument, used in the Documentary. Because of many reasons I have already pointed out, there is no equivalent case. Exceptions were taken that removes this case from comparables. Your entire interjection of why her looks are important, goes only to support your own assertions and conclusions. No understanding is given to why other cases had whatever outcomes, and certainly you never provided any explanation to why you are professing that her looks, and age of those looks, has anything to do with other cases. Its rank speculation on your part. You say it makes a difference because of how she looked, this is your error. Polanski knew and admitted he understood her to be a child of 13.

3. The Probation report is a second hand review of Polanski and the case. It was disputed by the Judge himself. The Judge heard all the evidence.

4. The Grand Jury transcript provides the victims testimony. Making a comparison as if the two should be equivalent is your belief. No one other than you are suggesting the two are comparable.

5. The photographs of this little girl, multiple times, her student body card, all show that this girl looked exactly like a 13 year old girl. You are trying to take contentious references and ignore the best documentation of appearance. Photographs.

6. It is your impossible to believe, assertion that a girl aged 13, is an abstract notion. That when Polanski knew she was a girl, and that she was 13, that someone that was an abstraction. And that in any way her appearance (as shown by his very own photographs) made the facts he knew meaningless, or more understandable.

7. Vannatter, the defense, the prosecution, the probation officers, the defenses witnesses (Angelica Houston etc) all are interested parties to this entire affair. They are not neutral. Many are doing a job for compensation, and all the office politics of a town supported mostly by this Hollywood Director's friends, is not trivial. Unless school mates and others that knew the 13 year old child are interviewed, the ONLY objective measure of how old this girl looked are the multiples of pictures available. Your bias is evidenced simply by your lack or reliance on this objective source.

8. Your need to place a number on the age she supposedly appeared, is being done, to support your own contentions as quoted above. Without your contentions, there is no rational to place the notion of how a selective few, with limited exposure, and exposure only after she was in shock and changed by the rape....into this Wikipedia entry.

Your Summary, and your logic to why any estimation of her appearance related to her age, is your very biased POV. You have asserted why something was important, based on nothing besides your own conjecture, then Summarized the issue, with a strong bias.

If think it is important to show what she looked like, do what the documentary did, show a picture of the girl. The victim allowed the documentary to use her images. But I would guess you would not want her pictures used, as it does not support your above assessment of why looking 18 years old was important. The simple fact is this 13 year old girl looked like what she was when photographed, and unless the sky is green, they clearly reflect the image of a 13 year old, not an 18 year old. --Tombaker321 (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(duplicating full comment which was inappropriately split)

Comment: Alternative summaries are welcome, but the above is not a summary of contention— it is a full restatement of previously asserted position (and WP:SOAP).

Lest the actual contention be lost in soap bubbles, the topic is about a blockquote: (already removed)

“ Polanski's arresting officer would later be summarized in the probation officer's report:

Sergeant Vanatter stated, "I have no doubt the events happened." He described the defendant as "extremely hyperactive." He described the victim as looking between 16 and 18 years old but acting only as if she were 13 or 14 years old and, "not really knowledgeable."

”

All are welcome to compose a different "summary" of the contention in this subtopic—noting that a summary is not a lengthy repetition of arguments already made. Such repetition is off topic for this subsection: "Summary ..."

And as the main topic indicates, the issue encompasses the complexities of primary vs secondary and NPOV. That will apparently have to be addressed in another forum than this talk page (in due time).
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77, your summary egregiously omits the following. 1. You have concluded that she looked much older than her actual age. 1. You have asserted as fact, that the victim was not a "child". 2. That the sexual offense was perpetrated on an individual that "looked" older than her age. 3. That the photographic record of the child, does not reflect how she "looked" 4. That the victims appearance, as relates to your conclusion of "she looked older"...in some way relates to why the defense should reasonably gain probation only for having sex with a 13 year old, who repeatedly objected to that sex. 5. Your summation: that the "appearance of victim's age" relates to how generic child rape cases were decided in California. Only when you place these into your summary would it then be a fair restatement of what is at contention, and what your arguments have been. --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77's final remarks at this time

1. Polanski's arresting officer description of victim's apparent age is the only issue in question in this topic.
2. I have responded as much as reason would suggest is sensible to the arguments presented.
3. My collapsed perceptions carry no weight in the discussion (which is why I collapsed them)—no more weight than arguments about interpretation of photos.
4. When the sexual abuse case section is balanced to achieve NPOV, the matter will be raised in appropriate Wikipedia forum. There, concision and focus will be the order of the day, rather than what was witnessed here.
5. NOTE: Do not expect floods of commenting to be persuasive. And do not expect such floods to be allowed to overwhelm any talk page.
6. The quote is not in the article at this time. Nothing argued above would be the basis for excluding it. (As previously mentioned, to be revisited when the summary is balanced to achieve NPOV.)

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The injecting of selective descriptions of her age, was put in by you Proofreader77, to support your stated theory, that she was as you said "not a child", and that by "some physical appearance of the 13 year old girl" (not evidenced in any of her photographs) should somehow mitigate the impact to the victim and the sentencing of Polanski. Your stated objective, was to change the perception of the reader when the introduction of the rape of 13 year old girl is offered. (that is your "Bottomline" You are attempting to bring in (selectively) that some said she looked older, contradicting the photographs, in order to support your claim that the sexual abuse was not committed against a 13 year old, but instead a person looking older. You are attempting to remove the fact of her simply being a child that looked like she was, in her pictures, a 13 year old girl. I have not read this wrong, I am responding to your assertions, those are your assertions.

This was never about just putting in a line about her age from the probation report. This topic was always about your theory and rational of the case, and your conclusion that she was not a "child". You have a theory, you have conclusions, you stated both here, as your justification to skew the article, by insisting the child was actually a woman when viewed. I am addressing specifically what you said above was your "Bottom Line". Your summary was a complete disservice because it did not acknowledge your "bottomline" and how you intended on supporting your theory, and how your theory should effect the reader. My responses to your claims, have all been on point. We did not get here by accident. Thank you. --Tombaker321 (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I really did not want to join this discussion again, but I have to address the subject of photographs. They are not an accurate depiction of reality. Last weekend, I saw pictures of a fifteen year old taken by her best friend. No photoshop, just pictures taken at a park. The notable point is that I did not recognize that fifteen year old although she is my daughter. My eighteen year old has recently been mistaken by a police officer to be 14, while a man a week later thought that she was old enough to have a ten year old son. My point is that, yes, the victim looks young in the pictures, but she may not have looked young to an observer (Huston, the probation officer, etc.). You bring to the photograph, and reality, your own perceptions, and the camera itself presents a distorted view. I won't even delve into the spate of evidence on eye-witness inconsistencies. Or that it is a common problem to not be able to distinguish individuals from different races (not that this applies here, but just as a general example of perception problems). How we see her now matters not in terms of the article, and jumping up and down and yelling "child" and "13" over and over again (have you seen that movie, btw? If you want to be disturbed...) is more thrusting at windmills. No one on this page thinks that this was a good thing. I would bet that each editor is appalled by various aspects of it. The battle isn't here.Oberonfitch (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You state you looked at a photograph and recognized the age of 15, but not the individual. You did determine the age. A photograph is a duplication of what the eye sees. While some photos may not show reality, in this case we have many photographs of her. Standing, making faces, dripping wet in a Jacuzzi. They all show the same girl, who looks everything the part of a 13 year old. The point here remains that selective observations as to the girls age, by interested parties in 1977, were being offered up as to be a conclusive statement of how she appeared. But not in the abstract, it was being done for the stated reason of changing the perception of the reader when first confronted by the situation and the age of the girl. The summary here needed to reflect why this topic was interjected. I.E., "looking 16 to 18" is not of secondary importance, but primary—something you need to know the moment you see "13"—because the sexual offense was not performed on an abstract number that Polanski knew, but a person appearing older. The medical report read: "Adult female." No she wasn't. But neither was she "Child." Proofreader77 (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [Quoting of collapsed comments of Proofreader77 by Tombaker321]

That is why her appearance was interjected for this topic, to gain those ends. To make the reader dismiss the notion of 13, and replace it with 18 year old. For that end, is why this entire thread and summary were created. The photographic record show she was "Child" This "issue" was never about only, "should we include what an officer was then reported by a 2nd officer to have said about the girls looks". Sorry but when someone takes an encyclopedic entry and then starts working to create the perception they want for the reader to have, it remains worth my time to engage the discussion. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

<--Actually, Proofreader, I did not say that I noticed that my daughter was 15. I said that I did not identify her as my daughter. Some of the pictures made her look substantially older and some much younger. My response was not to your post, but to Tom Baker's, who seems to be intractable about giving this article slant. I concur with Proofreader's position on the description of the victim. Although perhaps it does not belong in this article, I think the medical report information Proofreader cites above is valuable, and should be a part of the other article absolutely. If I am understanding this correctly, the victim was in the hospital undergoing the horrors of a rape test and this was how it was documented?

In any event, people (including apparently doctors, police officers, Huston, Polanski, etc.) weren't clear about where this child-teen-young woman fit in, in terms of maturation. (I ponder P's comment about asking her if she is on the pill. Even in the free and easy 60's, that would be an odd comment to address to someone you believed to be 13. Which may indicate that Polanski is odd, or that he believed her to be older, but that doesn't matter either because we aren't conducting research.) I am wary of making any decisions about someone's age based on purported photographic evidence, and calling for us to make a decision to do so, which TB does repeatedly, is not helpful. It does not matter whether we think she looks like a sweet almost 14, or a young almost adult woman. What people at that time thought, does. This much seems obvious; it is of primary importance that there was confusion (and apparently still is.) WOberonfitch (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(Focusing on the issue) Judge Ritterband accepted and summarized the assertion the victim looked older

• (according to news reports of September 20, 1977—without resort to primary)
• The judge's assertion cannot be excluded because of some editors' interpretation of photos.
• Nor can the judge's assertion be excluded because of arguments about what Proofreader77 may or may not believe or is trying to do—which Proofreader77 would describe as attempting to achieve NPOV.
• This topic was specifically about including a specific blockquote from primary. Since secondary sources convey the information, the need to argue re WP:PRIMARY is no longer necessary (but still something which needs deliberation vis a vis the imbalance of coverage of grand jury and probation reportin recent news coverage.
  -- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As show above the Polanski's legal arguments were an attempt to show that sex with a thirteen year old was allowable in over a dozen states. Polanski stated under oath that he was aware the victim was aged 13. Why Polanski was attracted to her has never been a debate. His proclivity for young girls is heavily documented, and at the time of the rape, he was in a well documented sexual relationship with a 15 year old. The reasoning proofreader77 has used to introduce material on her appearance is create a sanitized view of the incident in the readers mind. All the sources of her age, were of how see appeared after she had been repeatedly raped while she was in a drugged daze. She may well have had a look of shock, unaccustomed to a child, after the rape. There is no evidence she dressed in a manner that would make her look older, and the pictures that Polanski took of her with just a bikini in the Jacuzzi, show just her face, which looks 13 also. The photographic evidence is first hand evidence. Polanski was never sentenced, and has recently asked that all charges be dismissed, her appearance doesn't relate to either.

There is no reason to put in any commentary of how she looked, besides Proofreader77's need to create bias in the reader. The inclusion of subjective remarks about the girls age, gives those biased arguments more weight. Given her age, Polanskis belief that no one was harmed, Polanski's knowledge of her age...there is no reason to create the bias that Proofreader77 wants to create: that she may have looked 18.

No other reason has been given, to attempt to make the girl's appearance be that of an 18 year old, by adding references to the Probation Report. Are there any? There is no reason to re-address this later, it does not need to be kicked down the road. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Judge Ritterband said (as reported by newspapers in Sept 1977):

Excerpt of Judge's statements from Sept 20 1977 news article

[JUDGE RITTENBAND]: The girl, just short of her 14th birthday at the time of this offense, was a well-developed girl who looked [much]* beyond her years and regrettably was not unschooled in sexual matters," the judge said. "She has a 17-year-old boyfriend with whom she had sexual intercourse," he noted, reading from the probation report in the case. in addition, he said, the girl had experimented with the drug Quaalude when she was 11 years old. "Although she was not an inexperienced girl," the judge said, turning to the 44-year-old Polanski, "this is not a license to the defendant, a man of the world, to have sexual intercourse with her." He continued,"It is no defense that the victim may not have resisted." The Prescot Courier 9/20/1977

COMMENT: Including the court-understood fact that she looked older than 13 is simply a factor of NPOV.

REMINDER: The proposed primary blockquote was:

“ Polanski's arresting officer would later be summarized in the probation officer's report:

Sergeant Vanatter stated, "I have no doubt the events happened." He described the defendant as "extremely hyperactive." He described the victim as looking between 16 and 18 years old but acting only as if she were 13 or 14 years old and, "not really knowledgeable."Probation Officer's Report, page 20 lines 26-29 to page 21 line 1

”

BUT, of course, the secondary sources coverage of Judge Ritterband is now available (and secondary is usually preferred to the primary). Proofreader77 (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to choose either the Vanatter or the Rittenband quote, the Vanatter is decidedly milder. I believe that one or the other needs to be included, inasmuch as it demonstrates that Polanski may not have understood the victim's young age, as others did not either. Rittenband, who was yanking everyone's chain, certainly didn't have to make a statement which might have been useful in defense. But aside from that, I don't understand why this is such an issue; it is as though some editors are arguing that unless we state that he was a child rapist/monster/pedophile/serial molester (or only use text that reinforces the hideousness of it, instead of carefully balancing it and showing that a series of extremely ill-advised actions led to a big "boom") we have diminished the crime making it less serious. It is obviously extremely serious, although the sexual assault appears not to be the only crime that has taken place. The assistant district attorney agreed that Polanski should flee, after all. I endorse leaving in the block text, as it isn't going to make any reasonable person say "oh, well, yeah, that makes it alright." And those who do say that are beyond reason anyway.Oberonfitch (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay guys its just this simple, you are trying to rewrite and reframe what actually happened. Oberonfitch says "I believe that one or the other needs to be included, inasmuch as it demonstrates that Polanski may not have understood the victim's young age" You want to insert that the girl looked older to demonstrate that Polanski did not understand her age. That is complete fabrication. Polanski under oath said he did understand she was 13, and he knew this on the day he had sex with her.

I.E., "looking 16 to 18" is not of secondary importance, but primary—something you need to know the moment you see "13"—because the sexual offense was not performed on an abstract number that Polanski knew, but a person appearing older. The medical report read: "Adult female." No she wasn't. But neither was she "Child." Proofreader77 (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [Quoting of collapsed comments of Proofreader77 by Tombaker321]

Proofreader77 wants to insert POV players (Judge, Police, Probation Officers are POV) opinions of her age, for a stated purpose of reframing the readers mind, when they read "13" to reflect she was not "Child" POV group above all had obligations of the job and community and their reputations to be considered, after all they were getting written up in newspapers. NPOV photographs are not to be considered?

Both of the reasons these editors want to suggest she appeared 18 are not for the fact that someone said it, but rather to fabricate an impression for the reader to believe, despite known facts. "Just wanting to add this quote" is not is what is going on. --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment re new editor: User:Tombaker321 is a recently created single-purpose account (only edits this article). The editor's responses indicates a lack of understanding of the Wikipedia editing process. Believing government officials are not to be quoted because they are POV (while a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of photos is NPOV) illustrates this well.

The repeated insertions in bold of a collapsed comment of mine (with signature attached) is bad form, and should cease. (Save the diff of the comment for dispute resolution if it is believed as decisive as the editor believes it is.) Proofreader77 (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that government officials are not to be quoted, that is malarkey. I do suggest that the multiple photographs of the victim are first hand, and the closest to impartial, as possible, for the appearance of the victim. I am quoting your comments because they clearly show that Proofreader77 wants to edit this topic to drive a certain a 'result' they want. Proofreader77 states this implicitly. Inserting cherry picked quotes, to drive specific conclusions in a readers mind, warrants remark, and is contrary to an honest encyclopedic entry. --Tombaker321 (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed quote for now

Note I have removed the blockquote BUT I believe it conveys ... in the words of police officer who knew what she looked like, and experienced her behavior—things that are important to have in mind before "she speaks" ... and does so far better than any edged-in parenthetical phrase. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Extended further commentary on why "looking 16 to 18" is important

Follow-up comment: With the probation report info re "looking 16 to 18" as phrased by police sergeant (with balance maintaining young behavior), some elements of the case are clearer, E.G: victim + her mom + psychiatrists + probation officer all were saying "no jail." And a (surely contentious) terse parenthetical, e.g., (appearing "16 to 18") does not capture all that needs to be captured here. Note that the judge said many ruder things about the implications of the probation report (e.g., the victim's 17 year old boyfriend ought to be put on trial, too). Bottom line: As elegantly as possible, the victim's appearing older should be mentioned—not that it is an excuse, but that it makes it more understandable (to many of our outraged eyes) why—in a California in which no one had been sentenced to jail for a similar offense in the previous two years—the idea of probation is understandable (as it clearly was to many of the participants). I.E., "looking 16 to 18" is not of secondary importance, but primary—something you need to know the moment you see "13"—because the sexual offense was not performed on an abstract number that Polanski knew, but a person appearing older. The medical report read: "Adult female." No she wasn't. But neither was she "Child."-- Proofreader77 (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Roman Polanski knew how young she was. That is all that mattered. He knew she was below the legal age of consent, and thus committed a crime knowingly. What others thought of her appearance, her choice of breakfast cereals, or any other unrelated nonsense, has no possible purpose in the article. Mentioning she had sex previously, is not relevant to the case at all. If your wife got raped, would it be less of a crime because she previously had consequential sex with you? We have rape shield laws in this country for a reason, that being it is clearly proven that many people try to blame the victim. And thus any previous sexual experience can not be mentioned in rape trial these days. Since it is proven to be something that biases people, and there is no possible reason to mention it here, it not relevant to the case at all, I'm against its addition. Dream Focus 01:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

“ Polanski's arresting officer would later be summarized in the probation officer's report:

Sergeant Vanatter stated, I have no doubt the events happened." He described the defendant as "extremely hyperactive." He described the victim as looking between 16 and 18 years old but acting only as if she were 13 or 14 years old and, "not really knowledgeable."

”

• (1) Determining what punishment to be sentenced is based on many factors. The judge's knowledge she looked older is a factor he acknowledged. (2) Where in the blockquote does it mention her being sexually experienced other than an implication in the negative? (The judge, of course, mentioned that in secondary sources—but that is one reason I choose the blockquote instead). Rape shield laws certainly do not prevent the information that someone looked older.
  -- Proofreader77 (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Dream Focus - Perhaps I missed something? Is this a trial or a recounting of what happened in 1977? Rape shield laws really are not germane to the argument. BLP is. Once again, why is it necessary to censor certain aspects of the case because they are not to one's liking? Court cases like this are gruesome and uncomfortable. Still, rewriting history to be politically correct is a habit which should not be indulged. Oberonfitch (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77, the judge never acknowledged that her appearance had anything to do with his sentencing. Why are you even suggesting that? It is a logical fallacy, as presented.

Oberonfitch, the only "rewriting" going on, is an attempt to suggest that she looked older, for the standard, "its more understandable, she deserved it, she wanted it" arguments in rape cases. There is nowhere where the "appearance of the victim" is of any significance. How was it significant in any way to what Polanski did, what the case against him is, what he said he understood, what was argued in court???. It's as if you think, having an arresting officer assess if a woman of 27, was "pretty" or not, when she was raped, would have a purpose. Was that dress cut too high? By what rational are you trying to construct that the appearance of a 13 year old girl is important? This is a rape case, about a female who was undisputedly: drugged, pleaded for the rapist to stop over and over, and was then asked if she was on birth control, in order for Polanski to determine he would ejaculate into her anally. The need to insert the notion of her appearance of age, is the definition of blame the victim

How is it, evaluation or remark on her appearance, is any part of this case? --Tombaker321 (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The judge chose to summarize that part of the probation report in court. Journalists chose to repeat it. While it does not effect guilt/innocence—the punishment depends on many factors. Based on many factors the probation report recommended straight probation (with the concurrence of the psychiatrists, victim and her mother). The judge, faced with an outraged public, (sensibly) did not want Polanski walking around Hollywood after having done this. (In a future topic, #2, we will address the secondary sources illustrating that the Judge Ritterband's main interest was getting Polanski [voluntarily] deported—which is what happened, but with complication.)

WHY DOES HER LOOKING OLDER MATTER? Because if the victim had looked younger than her years (e.g. 10-12), rather older (16-18) then the recommendations and the judge's choice would have been different.

DO I THINK THE FACT CHANGES PERCEPTIONS? Of course I do—it is a fact in the NPOV equation, but my perception (or motive—whether to angelically balance the NPOV equation, or whether acting as a minion of darkness:) is of no consequence. What matters? Polanski said she looked older. Of course he did—he looks a bit less of a beast for doing what he did with someone who looked 16 to 18 than if she looked 13. (And, again, the amount of punishment depends upon how bad a beast you are.)

Is it fair to allow that assertion into the article? Of course it is. Polanski said she looked older, and that is echoed by his arresting officer via the probation officer on to the judge's comments. This is a BLP, not the case for the prosecution.

The description of the case is not currently NPOV. Due to the passions of the moment, that has been allowed to stand, but that will be corrected in due course of the Wikipedia process. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Do we list every single thing said, or just the parts relevant to this case? And since Polanski made his quote about how much he loved fucking young girls, and he ended up living with a 15 year old after this, I don't really believe he didn't know she was underage. Although clearly beneath the age of consent or the drinking age, Polanski knowingly broke the law and got her drunk and had sex with her. Dream Focus 08:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77: 1. Its hard argument for you to suggest you are working for a NPOV, when you state you are wanting to insert information about the age of the victim for the expressed reason of creating a specific perception in the readers mind. You are working very hard to conflate the victims true age, with a point of view, that is not reflected in the photographic evidence. You want to elevate specific comments from a Judge who you yourself claim is swayed by public opinion, negating your own claims of NPOV of the source.

2. Your belief that the judge did one thing because of her perceived age, or if he would have done something else if she was perceived as younger....is rank speculation. Completely unfounded, unsourced, and lacking of merit for an encyclopedic entry. You are pulling it out of thin air.

3. Polanski did not state she looked older. That is plain wrong. If you have a citation for this I would be happy to read it. I do know that Polanski said he did nothing wrong.

"He showed no sign whatever of contrition. When his lawyer Dalton warned him against appearing too often with "nubile young actresses" the director retorted: "I am not guilty, so why should I act guilty?"

We do know that he testified he understood her age, and he understood it on the day she was raped. You seem to think Polanski was saying she was older...I don't think there is any source for that. SHOW THAT SOURCE

4. You are using logical fallacy in your assertions. Its manipulative. You say that the Judge uses many factors to determine a sentence. Then say her appearance is a factor. So you are then saying that a factor in the judges sentence was her appearance. That is wrong. I know you want to make it so, but its a logical error.

5. Polanski was charged with drugging and raping the victim, he was not charged with dating her. Think about what you are saying. You think Polanski said, "Even though I knew she was 13, I thought she looked older, so I felt it would be fine to drug and rape her"? That is what you seem to want to maintain. --Tombaker321 (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

TB, it is just as easy to turn the Judge's statement around and think what a swinish person would say that about the victim. If you do that, you see that it reflects not on Polanski, but on the entire circus, which is what I believe the article should reflect. The entire case was poorly handled, and arguably continues to be. The article should reflect what happened. Further, making assertions about my feelings and motives in this case will, absolutely, create ill feelings. Please desist immediately. Oberonfitch (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You are totally right about the personal attacks and about the circus Oberon, I start to wonder what is holding up the extradition request, they have 40 days to present it and as yet it is not there, and 28 days have gone so they have only 12 days left to present it, I wonder if after all this time that they have a good case to present, anyway time is running out so we will find out soon enough. Does anyone know any sources from L.A about this?Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Note just for the record, that they did not prosecute the 17 year old boyfriend, although they could have. Generally, cut off for sex between minors is two years. That would have been four. Because I have little desire to go look through California Revised Statutes today, I'm not arguing for inclusion of this detail, (but if the argument is that she was unable to consent, that would be rape too, would it not?); however someone else might. Maybe not on this page, but the other. Oberonfitch (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I accept your remark back at me. Going back to basics, you had said that the statements about her age were appropriate because it would go to show that Polanski may have thought she was older. He said under oath that he understood she was 13. So inclusion of statements about the victims appearance are not necessary for that goal. Nowhere to be found is there anything suggesting that Polanski thought she looked older. The thread here is to the need to insert subjective assessments of the girls appearance. That is how this began. Unfortunately that has been given to as to why "appearance" statements would need to be put in, are to blame the victim The first proposal of how to insert was with block quotes, whistle blowing and flags waving. I certainly agree Wikipedia should reflect what happened, and this was a side show circus cluster-___ for sure. But it is simple wrong to emphasis disputed remarks about the victims looks, to drive the reader to desired conclusions. That is what was being done, and when I referred back to those facts, the only refutation is I should not use bold. This was a rape case. Nothing about her appearance of age is relevant to that. If she was 21, it would still be rape. Polanski never said she looked older. The photographs that he took, show her to look like a 13 year old, nearly 14. The pictures are valid evidence. Its not an issue if she was too young to consent, the victim has always asserted she protested. If she did look 18, it does not matter, she repeatedly tried to get him to stop, even after she was given alcohol and drugs. With this, there is no reason to put in remarks about the victims appearance, other than to skew the record and direct the reader to conclusions, the antithesis of what an encyclopedic entry should be. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I also don't really think that adding opinions about how old she looked is worthwhile, the point is that if we add citations that are middle of the road then those comments are not needed to balance the article, this was not a rape case at all, it was an unlawful sex with a minor case, what we need to remember is that we have a desire to add excessive comments from one position that excessive comments fron the opposite side will be required to balance the article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you send me a link to the testimony, the actual page, where he admits to knowing she was 13? I was about to say and "let's make a deallllll....." as in, we keep the comments regarding the confusion of the victim's age and maturation in and you get to put the (deleted because I just don't have the strength) little girls in....but of course, that won't fly, so I guess it all stays out. Wow, cooperation CAN be fun! Oberonfitch (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. Was that an apology?Oberonfitch (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the specific page. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea10.html Note his first response is the affirmative "She was 13" which is more powerful than the question...of what his "belief" was. IE he did not say "I thought she was 13" He then answers, with advise from counsel...he understood her to be 13 on the day of the sexual assault. If there is any source of information which says he thought she was older, at any point,I have not seen it, after looking for it.

As I have recognized that my comments here are being edited after I have placed them, I intend to create a clean new topic to carry forward. --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the linkl I am going to read through the transcript, but I have to ask, is this the hearing which was manipulated by the Judge? Anyone know? Oberonfitch (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The link about is the hearing on the Plea of guilty based on the Plea Bargain. It reflects a lot of information the defense was aware of, including the deportation issue. This is before any assertions of any misconduct by anyone.

There are is one hearing that is said to be manipulated by the Judge. That was when the judge decided he should go into the 90 days evaluation. Both the prosecution and defense said, that in chambers the judge reviewed his expectations of the hearing to follow. It's at issue if this was manipulation, because the defense said it was ready to file for a hearing on the matter, instead of proceeding, but they made an active choice to not do so. The defense then argued that the sentencing hearing was a manipulation, however beyond discussions with both sides present in chambers, that sentencing hearing never occurred, so it remains speculation to as what the Judge would actually do. Specifically the Judge had the option to suspend the sentence until a likely appeal was resolved. Basically we will never know what this judge would have done at sentencing, or how he would have handled additional motions. The defenses motion for dismissal presumes that unknown items were set in stone. --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources re probation report

• "Prison Ordered for Polanski" - "The probation report reveals .." The Spokesman-Review (Sept 20, 1977)

  Comment: It is useful to read an account written at the time. This one does not require purchase. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Google news archive result showing "looking between 16 and 18" quote "Mental Tests for Polanski Ordered," Los Angeles Times (Sept 20, 1997) [pay per view] Proofreader77 (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Cont. discussion re inclusion/exclusion of probation report info

• If there is no doubt him knowing she was only 13, then why is the rest of this mentioned at all? How old some people thought she looked, is not relevant in any possible way, and has no place in the article. As for they saying no jail, that is because they didn't want to have the ordeal of a trial, this guy famous, and the media attention would be something most unpleasant. It doesn't mean they didn't believe he should have done jail time. And whether she had sex with her boyfriend previously, is not relevant in any possible way. Mentioning that just biases some people. That's why we have rape shield laws in this country, and the question of whether or not the rape victim was a virgin or not at the time, is not allowed to be mentioned. Dream Focus 11:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish, she was not a virgin, that means she had had sex previously to having sex with Polanski and she had previously taken drugs as well, all this is totally relevent to this article and totally citable. Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A picture of the child from the time of her rape has been published widely, here is the UK Daily Mirror article with it.[1] She looks like several other innocent children that were sexualized around that time including Jodie Foster or Brooke Shields. Pedophilia was apparently all the rage in Hollywood then.99.135.170.179 (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• "I understood she was 13", Roman said under oath, in his plea. They have video footage of him saying this in the film Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. So that shouldn't be an issue. I just watched the film and posted notes about it in that article's talk page, it covering some other issues mentioned here. Dream Focus 11:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  "under oath" (as per agreement with judge). I.E., Misleading decontexualized assertion. See my response on Talk:Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? He could've pleaded guilty without acknowledging he knew she was 13. He didn't think the age mattered(based on his comments about fucking young girls, etc). Where in that documentary or other sources did it say he had to say that because of the judge or any agreement? You seem to be the one making misleading decontextualized assertions here. Dream Focus 19:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  Proofreader77, you are conflating a entire set of issues. You need to understand the sequencing of TIME with regards to this case.

1. There are not assertions by the defense of any wrong doing in any manner before Polanski plead. When you say it was part of any agreement it is false. During the plea, Polanski was asked if anything besides the dropping of the other 5 charges after his sentencing...if anything else was promised he said No.

2. They told Polanski to the crime he was going plea guilty to, that a legal Defense would be if he thought she was older. He said he understood this.

3. He said "she was 13"

4. He said he knew that on the day of the sexual assault.

5. He said no one pressured him to his plea.

6. You have stated with all sort sort of pomp that Polanski said she was older. Yet, you still have no source, it basically just fabricated out of thin air.

The only thing about the way she looked that is of any significance, is that we know that Polanski knew she was 13, and could not use as a defense that she looked older. Which was a defense he never in fact used, or even suggested. No one has ever suggest that she acted anything other than a 14 year old girl. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archiving/lock? (Why was this done?)

What's this archiving crap? Argument not going your way? You don't try to archive an ongoing discussion. Have we convinced you that Polanski knew the girl was 13 at the time of the crime, based on the overwhelming evidence, or should we continue this? I undid the archiving attempt [2] since the last post about this was less than three hours ago. Dream Focus 04:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Cease making bad-faith assertions immediately. (We will [take] that up elsewhere.)

1. Information specifically under discussion was removed (by me) 10 days ago
2. The unresolved (yes, repetitive) arguments are now taking up 78K.
3. The NPOV issues are broader than the one under discussion and will be require resolving with focused discussion in an appropriate forum.
4. A new editor who has [does] not know process [and formatting guidelines] has complicated the discussion. That is fine, but we have a huge blob of text that cannot be discussed by any new participants.
5. The current discussion in locked for archive for legitimate reasons above. Again, cease the bad faith assertions.

Proofreader77 (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• You do NOT have the right to do that. Dream Focus 04:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  For the reasons stated, a reasonable action was made. Make a case for leaving this ever-expanding (already-resolved issue in this form) open? The issue of NPOV balance is broader than one item, and it will require resolution other than by the looping path we have in this currently 78K of inappropriately unfocused text.Proofreader77 (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  Resolved? Does that mean everyone agrees to not add anything about her age into the article, since it isn't relevant what others said of it, since Roman Polanski clearly admitted he knew she was only 13 years old? Dream Focus 04:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  (Unresolved [NPOV broader issue]. [Specific issue [of age] appearance via blockquote resolved as not to include until broader issue is resolved, if ever]) - The NPOV balance issue of [is re inclusion/exclusion of] probation report etc information to balance grand jury testimony. It is clear that many believe that such information should be excluded. A broader ruling on that will require a different discussion (probably at WP:NPOVN. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I am fine with the archiving at this point. The information is retained. The problem is clearly when assertions were raised by proponents, when questioned for their fact and relevance, the editors refused to address them. i.e. The statements that Polanski said the victim "looked older", when asked for substantiation where replied only with repeated obfuscation and complete avoidance. Going forward I believe the issues can be better compartmentalized with more narrow topics being raised. --Tombaker321 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)