Testimony of then 14-year-old female victim against alleged 49-year-old perpetrator:
– She said he plied her with alcohol and drugs to lower her resistance.
– "After that, he proceeded to rape me.”
– “Anything I showed resistance or hesitation to, he would say, ‘…you have to experience the lowest form of humanity…’”
– She said he was motivated by sex and used his supposed position to get what he wanted.
Testimony of then 13-year-old female victim against admitted 43-year-old perpetrator:
– She said he plied her with alcohol and drugs.
– She said he then performed oral, vaginal and anal rape on her.
– She told him she wanted to go home. "I was ready to cry. I was going, ‘No. Come on. Stop it.’”
– She said that after he found out she was not using birth control, he anally raped her.
It doesn’t really matter which of the two testimonies is from the infamous 1977 Hollywood scandal and which the just-as-infamous 2002 Utah kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart. (If you must know, additional information is linked below.)
Both are in the news of late. The perp in the three-decades-old case was recently nabbed by authorities after getting a tad too confident in his travels. Also, last week kidnap victim Smart testified about the months-long abduction and daily assaults against her.
The difference in these cases, other than the two acts taking place some 25 years apart, is that the first was committed by an internationally-renowned film director and the more recent by a deranged street preacher.
Oh yes, the other difference is that the director, Roman Polanski, who pled guilty to unlawful intercourse and then fled the country years ago to a more “progressive” continent, is now being defended by a bunch of Hollywood-type elites, including Woody Allen, Whoopi Goldberg, Martin Scorsese and Harvey Weinstein, among others.
For whatever reason, though, they aren’t defending alleged kidnapper and rapist Brian David Mitchell.
Their reasons for siding with Polanski? The best way to sum it up is some hodgepodge of rationale about the times being different in the 1970s than now, that 30 years was a long time ago, and that Polanski has somehow served his time emotionally, while also being sadly barred from traveling completely as he pleases (albeit as a free and wealthy man, in a life of luxury).
Only in Hollywood could these two rape tales receive such different “screenplay treatments,” one accurately portrayed as the worst of times and the other spun into the best of times.
These forgiving and morally relative tinsel town icons, by the way, are the people we’re supposed to follow when it comes to selecting our political leaders. But, I digress.
One of the two victims also described her perpetrator as "evil, wicked, manipulative, stinky, slimy, selfish…” It’s unclear whether that description stands as a similarity or disimilarity between the two cases. Read the testimonies, then you decide.
Here’s a proposition for the Polanski apologists. If thirty years hence you feel sympathetic for Brian David Mitchell in the same way you presently do for Roman Polanski, let’s then talk about leniency.
Until that time, however, both of these pedophiles should rot in prison.
###
All of Barry’s posts … and on Twitter.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I especially like your use of the word “progressive.” Polanski flees to a more progressive country, and now it’s supposed progressives that come to his defense. Yes, this is progress, when rape is ok. Whoopi Goldberg actually said what Polanski did is “not rape rape,” meaning that some rape is ok, I guess. Huh? Yes, this is progress for women, Whoopi.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I remembering reading the court transcripts years ago when this first surfaced. Still sick. Amazing the depravity defining the cultural elite of our nation.