Yes, Polanski did undergo a 42-day in-custody observation in California after being charged with raping a child model after telling her to disrobe in Jack Nicholson's house, where Polanski photographed her and allegedly plied her with alcohol and drugs.
And he was led to believe he'd be free after serving the short stint for a guilty plea of unlawful sex. He went on the lam only when it appeared the judge might keep him behind bars longer.
But having read through the grand jury testimony by the victim, as I did last year, and given Polanski's acknowledgment that he had sex with her, I don't see it as anything but rape, and 42 days of observation was a joke. Observation for what?
The District Attorney's Office was under the impression at the time that the victim would not testify, weakening its case, but prosecutors were too quick to cut a deal that was a gift to Polanski. As for all the Polanski apologists around the world, I'd like to remind them that, as I reported last year, the girl said on more than one occasion in grand jury testimony that she didn't want to do what Polanski was asking her to do. She was scared and wanted to get away from him and go home, but he pushed and prodded, asked if she was on the pill, and had anal intercourse with her to avoid getting her pregnant.
"This is a travesty," said a statement Monday morning from Barbara Blaine, president of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. "Our hearts go out to the tens of thousands of sexual-assault victims whose perpetrators escaped justice by political clout, shrewd maneuvering, or by running out the clock on the statute of limitations."
Polanski, the statement went on, "got off scot-free despite his heinous sex offense against a girl."
Not quite scot-free, but close enough.
Steve Lopez is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times.
