The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Am I Missing Something Here?

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

JL — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:19:43 -0000

I'll make you a deal, Christina: I won't patronize you, if you'll stop patronizing me (i.e., by pointing out, in a schoolteacher's voice, what you have decided are my "real" motivations.)

No, that's not what a confession is. Read Polanski plea, and you can see exactly what he admits to (it's on page 8), and what he remains quiet on. In effect he says, "yeah I knew that she was 13 and that it was a crime". The rest of it -- the drugging, for example, he doesn't respond to because the state dropped all those charges in exchange for the plea. Indeed, the State explicitly *dropped the charge of rape*. Why would he bother to defend himself against charges that have been dropped?

So the state says, "We're not going to charge him with rape". Polanski doesn't admit to rape (though his victim says it happened). He confesses to, and is convicted via plea bargain of unlawful sexual intercourse.

And yet you, Christina, think it's not only OK to refer to him on CNN as a rapist, but disparage people who don't.

I don't think I want to talk about this any more.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

moppet — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:43:42 -0000

JL -- I never said that emotions aren't running high. But I'm suggesting that your skepticism is misplaced, and it makes me feel like for some reason you're arguing just to prove that you're more wise and less emotional than everyone else. And I'm sure you are wise. But I don't understand why you feel the need to split hairs *in this case.*

1. Roman Polanski confessed to a crime.

2. He didn't flee the country because he said he was coerced into that confession. He fled becauase he was afraid of the sentence that might be imposed on him.

3. To my knowledge, he has never denied any of the parts of this confession.

I'm not wrong about CNN. Please trust me on this, if you can trust a stranger on the internet who says she is a journalist. Whatever he is -- he isn't an "alleged" anything. That was my point. My problem was that they were calling him "alleged," and wrote that he "had sex with her," like there's some question here as to whether a crime was committed and maybe it was "just sex." A crime was committed. She has never changed her story, he has never offered a different story in a court. Her testimony that she was raped (or was the victim of unlawful sexual intercourse, whatever) became accepted fact when he confessed to that crime. Isn't that what a confession is?

(Also, legalese like "unlawful sexual intercourse" is routinely shortened to "rape" in news accounts. Just like legalese like "fled on foot" is turned into "ran away.")

The Duke case is irrelevant because of course, in that situation, there were huge, valid questions of guilt from the very start (for what it's worth, I did not believe her fairly early on. Not that it matters.) Those guys protested their innocence. They didn't plead guilty to other charges.

If all these years Roman had been arguing that the girl's account was not accurate, that they put thumb screws on him to get him to say he did it, that they had some man confess in his name, that he didn't understand the charges, etc. then we would have something to talk about. That kind of thing does happen to people. But he's never argued that it happened to *him.* From my perspective, I feel like you're introducing "maybes" into something that's pretty cut-and-dried, from a legal perspective.

Your original thought, I believe, was, "maybe this shouldn't be prosecuted because it will hurt his victim." I agree with you all that this hurts his victim, but I would argue that actually finishing up this case hurts less than this seemingly pointless musing about whether her testimony is fact, whether she's believable or perhaps can be linked to the Duke stripper case, whether he's an "alleged" criminal or really a criminal, is he a "rapist" or an "unlawful sexual intercourser," etc. If for the sake of being level-headed you'd like to introduce doubt into something that neither she nor Polanski have ever in all these years recanted, I don't understand that.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

JL — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 12:16:32 -0000

No need to get your dudgeon up. I didn't know you were a working journalist. Some people aren't.

As for me: yes I do want to be exact. So, for whatever it's worth: (1) I believe he raped her. (2) I believe he confessed to, is guilty of, can fairly, in print, described as a perpetrator of, and should be punished for...

Well, here it gets tricky, and more than a little hair-splitting. He confessed to Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, which, given that it makes no reference to consent, is a different crime than rape, as we usually understand it. Indeed, as far as I can tell, there's no such thing as "Statutory Rape" in California; and nowhere in Polanski's pleas does the word "rape" arise. That said, "convicted Unlawful Sexual Intercourser" doesn't exactly trip off the tongue.

If I were a journalist, would I call him "convicted rapist" or "alleged rapist"? Eh, I'd probably go with "convicted sex offender". Presumably my editors or producers would have the final say. But your argument that "he is a rapist", and "CNN is just wrong" is...well, just wrong.

As for people howling for his head, I give you:

1. Andy -- 'I don't have a problem with child molesters getting the death penalty."

2. thefoulness (sic): "Grown men who fuck little girls deserve to go first to jail, and then to hell."

3. djbtak: "In a better justice system than ours, concerned with making every judgement about some universal principle, Polanski would be brought back to the US, and the victim's family would be given the opportunity to beat the shit out of him to the point of death."

Etc.

That's not everyone, by any means, but you have to admit, emotions have been running high on this one.

More importantly, I don't see anywhere (if I'm wrong about this, please tell me) where Polanski stipulates that the girl's account of what happened is accurate. Because many people here seem to be assuming that her testimony is accepted fact. And I believe her, too; but then, I believed the Duke stripper.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

moppet — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:08:16 -0000

JL --I'm a working journalist. I understand "journalistic conventions," and I also understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty. I don't *think* you meant that all to sound quite as pedantic as that read on the page, or to suggest that I think Roman Polanski is guilty because he's short, foreign, or wealthy.

Just to note again, Roman Polanski *confessed to rape* (actually, "unlawful sexual intercourse" if you want to be exact) and was prepared to face some kind of sentence for it. These weren't just words he was throwing around; there is no more "alleged" crime to talk about, and no more questions about his guilt in the eyes of the law. I'm not merely "welcome" to call him a rapist -- he is a rapist. He saw what the prosecution had on him, and worked out a plea. I'm not sure where you're getting the impression he never got a chance to mount a defense or see the evidence against him. How would he have decided to plead guilty without that information? There is a whole trial transcript where he testified under oath to what he did, that he understood he was waiving his right to a trial, that he understood what that meant, he was working with a lawyer, etc. Enjoy:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html

If he had fled the country before any kind of trial or plea deal, of course then the media would need to say "allegedly." But I'm sure you know that's not what happened -- he just ran away before sentencing -- and that's where CNN is just wrong. And their reporters' carelessness and stupidity is another twist of the knife, I'm sure, in the heart of his victim. Whether she "forgives" him or not, she has never said that she just "had sex with him" and was not raped.

I very much hope we are on the same page with this. I feel like you are arguing that your skepticism is making you a bit more honest than the rest of us who are howling for Polanski's head. But I don't need to be skeptical. I'm just taking the guy at the word that he gave under oath, since at no point has he argued that he was forced into a confession. At least one CNN reporter, unfortunately, doesn't get that. We don't need to spread that misapprehension any further.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

JL — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:56:41 -0000

Sorry, Christina, I may have failed to address the misunderstanding, here. Yes, as you say, a confession is as good as a conviction; I'm afraid I may have been a little unclear about that.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

JL — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:47:43 -0000

It may seem crazy to you, but it's a well-established journalistic convention, based on the principle that all men -- including short, foreign, wealthy men -- are to be considered innocent until proven guilty. So yes, absolutely, as far as the press is concerned (as with the legal system itself) you're just an alleged murderer until you either confess, or you're tried and convicted in a court of law. The system may have its absurdities, but the alternatives are much worse. In general, it's very important that the press not make assumptions about who's guilty and who isn't. People shouldn't be tried in newsrooms: they're tried in courtrooms.

I'm not trying to give him any kind of pass. He's guilty of whatever he was convicted of, or confessed to -- in this case, statutory rape. He may very well be guilty of more, but that's not for you, me, or the New York Times to decide. We're all welcome to have our opinions, and to express them as we see fit: you're welcome to refer to Polanski as a rapist. But, if you recall, we were talking about CNN. Ideally, I think, news outlets leave that sort of judgment on the editorial page.

My own experience is that my first take on something like this almost never survives the second wave of facts. It's happened to me again and again, so I try to be skeptical about things, including -- especially -- my own beliefs.

In this instance, as it happens, I don't really care whether Polanski was screwed over by the justice system, but I'm very glad that someone out there does care. That's what keeps the system honest -- or more honest than it would otherwise be, anyway. Justice isn't just for people we like: it's for people we find abhorrent, too. In fact, I think it's precisely when someone strains our sympathies that we need to be most vigilant.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

sabriyahm — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:42:27 -0000

1) How active a judge is at sentencing is up to the judge. Some almost never change the deal. Some do it routinely. It really just depends on the judge. However deals are usually crafted with the judge in mind. In other words, knowing the judge, I try to craft something I know the judge will accept.

2) Yes the strength of the case effects the plea deal. But you seemed to imply that just making a deal meant it was a weak case. That is not the case. Only in the very rare times when I am seeking the maximun legal punishment (a circumstance that has happened in a handful of thousands of cases) do I not try to make a deal. No matter how great a case I'd rather not have to try it unless absolutely neccessary.

3) I think you are confusing entering a guilty plea with plea bargaining. As I understand it Mr. Polanski already entered his guilty plea. This always happens BEFORE sentencing regardless of any plea arrangments or deals. You have to admit guilty first before you can be sentenced. Frequently sentencing happens at a later date, for example after a psychological is done. Even though Polanski was awaiting sentence he had already entered his plea. This means someone stood up in court and gave a summary of the facts and he admitted to doing that summary. So at the minimum he admitted to sex with a 13yr old. How that sex came about is frankly irrelevant in my eyes.

4) I would no more consider her fairly unreasonable position then I would a victim who wanted him to get the death penalty. People only care what victims think when they want the criminal forgiven. When they want him killed then their unreasonable crazy people who shouldn't have a say. I am not saying that's your opinion. I'm just saying that Justice is not best served by allowing those most personnally invested in the events to decide the outcome.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

moppet — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:23:27 -0000

I don't understand your reasoning, JL. If I plead guilty to murder, and go to jail, I'm just an alleged murderer because I wasn't tried and convicted? That seems crazy to me.

I believe it is false that he never got to form a defense, etc. One usually pleads guilty to crimes when you know what the other side has on you, and you worry that you don't have an adequate defense.

He pleaded guilty to statutory rape. He is not arguing that the event didn't happen, that his plea was coerced, or that he did not get a chance to see the evidence, form a defense etc. Why are you giving Roman Polanski more of a pass than he even gave himself?

This conversation feels like it's taking a turn down a "Roman Polanski has been screwed over by the justice system" road, and I don't think either one of us want to go there. I tried to respond to your original point about the victim and her feelings and how I think they should apply or not apply, and I guess that's all I, at least, can say on that.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

Walt — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:36:13 -0000

Where was all this outrage the last 30 yrs? All of sudden we're shocked at this situation? Never did we say, hey, France, how about you hand him over? Where were our higher moral attitudes then? It's a shame our ADHD society can only get mad when it's the story of the week.

This should have been handled 30 yrs ago.

And for what justice is worth, the victim did win a civil suit against Polanski.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

JL — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:20:44 -0000

Christina, you say: "If she had been arguing that Polanski should be killed, and that every day he walks the earth a living person is like being raped again, I hope you wouldn't therefore say he deserves capital punishment for his crime."

No, I wouldn't. Because, frankly, I think forgiveness is a good, and vengeance is an evil, so I think it's fine for the state to recognize the former, but not to promote the latter.

As far as CNN goes: journalistically, they're on the right track. Newspeople are supposed describe men or women according to they've actually been convicted of. Everything else is "alleged" or "suspected". In Polanski's case, he plead to statutory rape. He was never tried for rape, or for drugging the girl -- and this is not trivial: he never got to see the evidence against him, he never got to form a defense, question the other side's witnesses, and so on. I believed he raped her, but until he's tried, and convicted, I wouldn't say so in print. No, I'm afraid "alleged rape" the accurate way to go.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

moppet — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:41:42 -0000

I don't want to sound like I am cavalier towards Polanski's victim. I truly cannot imagine what she is going through. But the answer to a media industry run amok cannot be to let criminals go when everybody decides they just get tired of the publicity.

If she had been arguing that Polanski should be killed, and that every day he walks the earth a living person is like being raped again, I hope you wouldn't therefore say he deserves capital punishment for his crime. This isn't an abstraction. There are absolutely people rich enough to do heinous crimes and skip town, and they are paying attention to this.

But in a larger sense, I wish there was some sense of propriety. There was a story on CNN.com, might still be there for all I know, that talked about the "alleged" rape and that she "had sex with him." That kind of construction is objectively false. And, here Hugo is, arguing that because she was young and had had sex before and had a "bad" mother, maybe all this was consensual and it's merely a case of "underage sex." I understand why she sees that further pursuit of the case is an attack on her. But that just means that some people suck, not that Roman Polanski gets to go free.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

JL — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:24:02 -0000

Christina, you make some good points, but when the victim says that more publicity is liked being raped for a second time, I find my devotion to abstract principles wavering.

djbtak, on the other hand: my devotion to those principles is strong enough that I find your comment (3), above, at best blustery, and at worst appalling. It's representative of what troubles me about all of this -- an absolute bloodlust, as if people are tired of having to hold in their rage, and having found, in Polanski, an apparently indefensible figure, are absolutely delighted to let loose with remarks that "in a better justice system" some sort of frontier vengeance would be given its due. My answer is, 'No, that wouldn't be better at all. That would be a disaster.'

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

djbtak — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:02:40 -0000

1. Polanski is a rapist and a scumbag.

2. The victim does not want the case to go to court. She is the one who was wronged. I do not believe anyone saying our government does a good job of protecting women and its authority to protect them should be given precedence over actual women.

3. In a better justice system than ours, concerned with making every judgement about some universal principle, Polanski would be brought back to the US, and the victim's family would be given the opportunity to beat the shit out of him to the point of death. Alas, we have what we have.

4. The extension of US law to Zurich, when there is no extradition agreement already in place, could set a very unwelcome precedent. I'd appreciate input from anyone with knowledge on that aspect.

5. No-one giving Polanski a free pass based on his "contribution" gets any recognition from me. He's despicable. But the case is still highly flawed and possibly likely to have a lot of negative impact on the legal system as a whole...

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

Sgt. Friday — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:09:11 -0000

I just read the plea at Smoking Gun. I think your reading missed several relevant facts.

1) His statement re: 1-20 years of incarceration was related to his understanding of the MAXIMUM sentence. The prosecutor's very next question to Polanski is whether he understands that he, "could be placed on probation, with OR WITHOUT being required to serve up to one year in the County Jail?"

2) Polanski answers all of the prosecutor's questions routinely until asked, "Do you understand that at this time, the Court has not made any decision as to what sentence you will receive?" He does not respond and the question has to be asked again.

3) Not sure what point your making re: "his" attorney asking him to be under oath, but it's not true,

Mr. Gunson: "Your Honor, the People request that this plea be given under oath, and that Mr. Polanski be sworn by the court."

Gunson is the prosecutor.

TNC,

If you're still following this thread, do you feel that a guilty man deserves a fair trial? I think what's alleged by some Polanski defenders is that the judge was going to reneg on an agreement (not necessarily a plea-bargain) to which he was a part, of which Polanski had already done 1/2 the time. This may be legal but is it just in your mind?

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

moppet — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:05:32 -0000

Hugo, I believe you when you say that you are not interested in having sex with underaged women. I think you bring up an interesting pont that your feelings about this situation changed when you read the deposition that TNC linked for you. Perhaps all of Polanski's supporters should do the same, so at least some percentage of them can stop blaming this woman for what happened to her, or implying that it was consensual, or saying that it wasn't *really* rape, or whatever. This is not a mere case of underaged sex, which I fear you keep focusing on. It's not rape because she was very young -- though in this country, we have statuatory rape laws because we have determined that women of a certain age cannot legally consent. (I don't know what the law is where you live.)

In *this* case, in addition to her age, it is rape because his victim has never, ever, to my knowledge, said that she wanted to have sex with Roman Polanski that day. So all these issues of "consent," her age, his age, her virginity or lack thereof, her mother, her use of drugs, etc, go out the window. He drugged her, and then against her will, he raped her. It wouldn't matter if they were both 44 at the time. That is rape.

(By the way, you have referred to the fact that she may have had other sex partners. In the U.S., some statutory rape laws take into account the age of both parties. So, if she were 13 and having sex with a 15 year old, it may not be rape because both parties are underage. The law does see some shades of gray in these situations -- not that they are applicable here.)

JL, the argument for arresting and imprisoning Polanski is that that is what we do that with criminals. We cannot have a "justice" system that is guided by the capricious wishes of victims. The fact that this particular victim says "no more prosecution" is interesting, but that's all. It's noteworthy. It's something to weigh, perhaps, at sentencing. But if victims' wishes were all we followed, then we could have a lot of criminals running around just paying off their victims, perhaps, so that they would never face prosecution.

We also cannot have a justice system that says that if you merely evade the imposition of your sentence long enough, you get a free pass. Or, if you have enough money to get out of the country, oh well, no more case. Our system is tilted toward the well-off enough as it is. Do you really want to skew it even more in that direction?

Again, his victim's wishes are noteworthy. But we don't have to follow them any more than we'd have to put a bullet in his brain if that was what she was arguing for.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

Hugo Pottisch — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:45:42 -0000

Christina,

I agree and have been trying to make this point.. all over the place. I can actually imagine that a girl and an older man can have consensual sex. I do further believe that in this case it was not consensual but rape. My point about her not being a virgin was merely that somebody else, besides Polanksi must have had sex with her first. Keyword statutory rape.

Can you actually believe that I am not promoting child rape and that I am personally not turned out by children? This whole discussion started with the French and some actors defending Polanski. I dared to ask if it was statutory rape or rape-rape. Boom.

My "European" girlfriend and her friends for example do not know that it was rape-rape. It goes under in the media in Europe. I am actually "fighting" the other way too - trying to convince them that it was more than statutory rape. There are a surprising number of women who can imagine a young girl having consensual sex with an adult. I think it is important to stress that it was more than statutory rape and not merely scream around. Most people in Europe are much more against rape-rape than against so called statutory rape.

And it is true - there was a language challenge. In most European languages the term rape is not used in combination with underaged sex. And by the way - only because the term is not used in such a way does not mean that Europeans support underaged sex. Implying that the French or even hundred actors are pro child rape is maybe more counterproductive than singling out a single person like Polanski?

It is further true that many around me do not understand why the court does not respect the victims wishes. I personally do understand why and argue with them too. Either way - neither you nor I can change something about the whole thing. We can only control our own actions. Thanks for the most genuine and friendly comment to me in this debate by the way.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

JL — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:05:28 -0000

I'm sorry, rb6, but the way I understand justice, you don't ever factor in all the bad things you think somebody might have done, but for which you have no proof, or even evidence. And 'most guys who do this sort of thing do it multiple times' is not evidence. This is an excuse that cops use when they arrest the wrong guy -- 'Well, maybe he didn't do that crime, but I'll bet he did some others that we never got him for.'

IF the argument for arresting and imprisoning Polanski against the wishes of his victim is that in doing so we're protecting society as a whole from marauders, and IF there is no positive reason to believe that Polanski has been such a threat in the past thirty years, then that argument dissolves.

If, on the other hand, his victim wanted to see him arrested and imprisoned, I would have no problem at all seeing it happen.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

moppet — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:29:40 -0000

JL, to your question -- I think that at no point is the justice system obligated to follow a victim's wishes when it is deciding whether to PROSECUTE a crime. A victim's wishes could come into play when we decide how to *sentence* someone. But if the justice system was to follow the wishes of victims, most criminals would be executed on the spot and some random others would walk free. That's not how things should work.

I am sorry that punishing Polanski, in this case, means punishing his victim. The media attention to this sucks, and I feel terribly for her. I think she's been victimized by the media at least as much as she's been victimized by Polanski. But I don't want criminals walking the street because their victims are in a forgiving mood that day.

Hugo -- you are all over the place. I literally can't understand all of the arguments you are making; perhaps the sarcasm isn't coming through or there is a language barrir.

But I think part of the problem is that you are talking broadly, and all the rest of us are talking about a specific situation. If you want to argue that there are some situations where some underage girl could possibly want to have sex with some older man, that has nothing to do with whether THIS girl wanted to have sex with THIS guy. And as has been said, it doesn't matter if she wasn't a virgin, if she had taken drugs before, if her mother served her up on a platter...WHATEVER. Just because, in some universe you have imagined, a girl and an old man are having great consensual sex, it doesn't mean that has anything to do with this rape case.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

nolaboyd — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:38:07 -0000

AFAIK, it was that the judge clearly signaled that he would accept the prosecution's recommendation for a minimal sentence. But it leaked out that the judge had every intention of reneging on the deal and slapping him with the full 20 AFTER he pled guilty and the plea was accepted. (No appeal, Persia. Get it?) That's why the prosecutor didn't blame Polanski for running.

One thing that I have not seen raised is the possibility that Polanski only made this plea based on the minimal sentencing assurance by the prosecutor. Had it not been offered, he may very well chosen to go to trial.

And won. Think of the mother, the drugs, the dirt. Then think of WHEN it happened and the resources Polanski had at his disposal. You really think he would have been convicted? Part of the reason so much hard work has been done improving rape trials is because they weren't all that fair for a long time.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

nolaboyd — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:23:28 -0000

Yes, but the issue raised by Harding is the moral case that he raped a child. There is no meaningful sense in which she was still a child, which is why her sexual history is in fact relevant. (Though she is also clearly not an adult either, which is why stat rape laws exist.)

Stat rape of a minor and child molestation are very different things, not just morally, but in many legal juurisdictions.

Harding makes it worse rather than better, and her repeated claim that he raped a child is an offense to every child that has ever been molested or raped.

Polanski raped her under every legal definition of rape. Why do we have to exaggerate and call her a child when clearly she was not? Do you seriously think he's a child molester?

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

nolaboyd — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:09:32 -0000

I'm sorry, but this "noble pursuit of justice" line is just odious. There is so much injustice right in front of our faces that we are not addressing with any vigor (say, prison rape) that this just rings false.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

rb6 — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:28:30 -0000

Right, and one reason why you treat even the first known incident seriously is because many people would never come forward. You truly don't know whether it was the first, the fifth or the fiftieth -- or how many more came afterwards. This is, of course, what the Catholic Church has been dealing with. That "one" offense was almost never the whole story.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

Juaquin Murrieta — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:32:52 -0000

I know it sounds a little odd, but the criminal justice system isn't really about defending or avenging the victim of the crime. It's about defending society as a whole from criminal behavior. Thus the names of such cases: The State of California v. Smith. Not Mr. Victim v. Smith.

It certainly seems unfair to the victim in this case to drag this whole thing out again, but the alternative would be to say, "There, there, Mr. Polanski, we know you pled guilty to the forcible rape of a child and then ran off, but you're so rich and famous that it's OK now, don't you worry your little head about it." This would not be in the State's interest: we need to be protected from people like this, and the criminal justice system should incarcerate people like this, both to get them off the streets and to serve as a warning to others.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

Juaquin Murrieta — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:17:10 -0000

OK, if the standards of justice were not met in this case for whatever reason, Mr. Polanski can pursue his remedies on appeal. That's what we have appeals courts for.

Re: Am I Missing Something Here?

Juaquin Murrieta — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:31:52 -0000

I am quite unable to figure out just what this alleged "suffering" consisted of. Living in a bunch of expensive homes in Europe? Europe is quite a nice place, especially if you have money. Winning awards is pleasant too.

My sympathy for this felon is everything it should be.