This comment reveals the ignorance of Wiborg, and others, I fear, which undermines any serious consideration of his opinions and conclusions. Wiborg seems not to understand that a jury (a Californian jury, not a US jury as he implies) would never consider the arguments being raised here. The jury would be concerned with issues of fact, not of law, and whether the sentence was served, issued, et cet is wholly removed from jury’s province. Additonally, it is quite unclear why Wiborg supposes a jury would be convened, indeed he does not say, however; it is clear he is, again, confused. A Jury is available to the defendant to try the guilt of the accused, the defendant has no right to obtain one, nor ability to do so, to hear questions as to this sentence or the associated issues.

Wiborg’s claim that the US justice system is being duplicitous and malicious is completely unfounded- indeed, he doesn’t even allege facts nor profer reasoning in support of this claim. The US Justice system has absolutely no involvement whatsoever in this case aside from their necessary and Constitutionally-mandatted role in addressing the matter of US-Swiss communication as California has no standing to request consideration from the Swiss under bot international law or equity (as the US Constitution reserves all diplomatic issues to the executive of the US save for certain legislatively-delegated functions). It is therefore quite bizarre for the poster to allege the US is at all improper in requesting extradition of a fugitive- which is exactly what Mr. Polanski is to the US, being informed of such by a sovereign US state.

As to the meat of the matter, I have great sympathy for the position of the US and for the general refusal of California to refuse to entertain petitions from fugitives or others who refuse to appear personally in support of their petition, however; I feel that California has no excuse for insisting on its present position due to the circumstances: namely the lack of prejudice to the state if the court considered the matter without Polanski’s appearance, the substantial questions as to the propreity, both legally and equitablly, of the process thus far, and the fact that the victim requests this matter to be closed- which the law allows for.

The critisisms of the US in this case reflect a fundamental ignorance of the US Constitution and the federalist system that handles such matters as crime, and it is concerning that people would have such solid convictions without understanding the situation at all.

The villain in this legal affair, if any, is the State of California, and its legal representative in this matter. The US has done nothing improper, and by all accounts has acted completely proper.(It is worth noting, further, that while California’s position is ill considered, it is not fundamentally unfair and certainly not unusual- comonlaw legal systems have generally always required the movant to appear and neglected petitions from fugitives)

Your cry of anger has been heard Mr. Polanski, I pray soon you will be free and reunited with your family.

my previous post against mr Polanski’s opinions and views seems to have been removed.

perhaps within ciberspace we are able to retrieve it again, in the name of free speech if Mr Levy believes in this.

if not I am sure we can re-post it again and again whether it is against Mr Levy’s views or not

As a « true » philosopher I am sure Mr Levy would be able to accept views contrary to his own friend

Or maybe this is not the case?

here it is again after previous removal and if it is removed again it will most definitely be posted all over the world wide web with the clear understanding that if Mr Levy found it unacceptable as a « true » French philosopher he may not be telling the whole truth either

Dear Mr Polanski

I cannot remain silent because there appears within your own statement no mention of a “profound sorry and sincere apology” for the deep hurt which you have quite obviously caused this woman and her family which has rested with them for all their lives.

I cannot remain silent because the majority of your statement seems only concerned about the protection of Yourself.

I cannot remain silent because although your own parents were killed in the Concentration Camps of Europe and although your own previous wife and children were murdered in Los Angeles this DOES NOT give you the right to abuse others.

I cannot remain silent because when you are a “film director” in Hollywood does not mean that you have the right to take advantage of anyone significantly younger than you because of your own sexual desires and despite the fact that this often happens in the “very sick film industry” which you represent, whether they are under-age or not.

I cannot remain silent because when you decide to work and live in a foreign country in order to promote yourself and enhance your career, with no doubt great financial gain and prestige in mind, you have to accept the norms and culture of that country whether you agree with it or not. An intelligent person who decided to live in Saudi Arabia, for example, would be extremely stupid to transgress their own cultural norms.

I cannot remain silent because although you have decided to moan and complain about the fact that you have mortgaged your own no doubt luxurious residence in Paris, none of your multi-millionaire “Hollywood Friends” seem to have “stepped in” to help you. Perhaps this says more about them than about you and the world which you have chosen to inhabit.

I cannot remain silent because your own wife knew very well about your past before she agreed to marry you, and with sadness, your own children, born from her, are now taking on this suffering as well.

I cannot remain silent, Mr Polanski, because maybe it is Time that you faced up to Yourself?

I cannot remain silent because I know that within the USA Justice System (I am not from the USA myself) it is quite possible for “famous people” to defend themselves as both Michael Jackson and O J Simpson were and are extremely aware. This would obviously not be so easy in places like China or Saudi Arabia for example. You still have this option as you did then in the 1970’s.

I cannot remain silent because despite the quite enormous suffering you seem to create around you, you do not appear to have learnt your lesson.

I cannot remain silent because maybe it is time that you chose to live a Hermit Life so that in the future despite your own sad past, you do not continue to cause so much harm and suffering to those that become close to you.

I cannot remain silent since merely because you have created great films, no doubt with the suffering of others in mind, you do not appear to have practiced the same yourself.

I cannot remain silent because despite everything, I do not really believe that you are genuinely and honestly telling me the Truth.

yours sincerely

Jonathan, a philosopher, in Brussels

Rather than trust the media who has profited from reporting on this case for the past 33 years, I think this post was the best way for Polanski to speak directly to the public. Even so, it is unlikely that his statement here will change anyone’s opinion of him or his actions.