Just posted a rant about how a Return of Kings author is badmouthing Polanski http://8ch.net/cos/res/15.html
It occurs to me that AVFM has done the same shit though.
From Philip W. Cook 14 February 2014 per http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/the-art-of-differentiation-woody-allen-bill-clinton-richard-nixon-roman-polanski-others/
>Movie director Roman Polanski, who directed the Jack Nicholson classic film Chinatown, was arrested in 1977 for the statutory rape of 13-year-old girl and plead guilty. To avoid sentencing he fled the U.S.
This is misleading. Polanski did not plead guilty to the charges pressed against him. Instead, he accepted a plea bargain for a lesser charge. It was not a statutory rape charge, it was the lesser crime 'unlawful sex with a minor'.
He did not flea to avoid sentencing: he served the sentence he agreed to his in plea bargain, which was a period of detainment up to 90 days to receive psychiatric counseling.
The psychiatrist ended it early when they determined Polanski was not a pedophile or a threat to society. Polanski then believed he had served the sentence he agreed to.
The judge however, was then trying to change the sentence to make it longer, even after communicating to Polanski that he had served the entire sentence. People involved in the backroom discussion have testified to this.
Polanski only fled to escape injustice and unwarranted additional sentencing, which the judge said he wouldn't give.
This BS is not new for AVFM:
3 August 2010 by B.R. Merrick per Free Roman Polanski - A Voice for Men
>"Rosemary’s Baby” is one of the greatest films of all time, a one-of-a-kind original. The director of this masterpiece, one Roman Polanski, raped a thirteen-year-old back in the ‘70s
How the fuck does AVFM get off making unproven claims like this about men? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Benefit of the doubt?
Why does Samantha Jane Gailey get the "listen and believe" treatment from AVFM?
>based on the victim’s testimony and her stalwart defense of that testimony throughout the years, she said, “No” and he didn’t stop.
Apparently that's all that matters? We have not even established that Samantha was a "victim" of anything.
There was no physical proof any of this happened. Sounds like Roman saw he was getting framed and copped to what he was misled to think was a light-sentence plea bargain to make the hassle go away.
Caving in to plea bargains when everyone assumes the worse in you does not automatically mean you are guilty.
Even if Roman was honestly admitting that 'unlawful sex with a minor' (NOT statutory rape, USWAM is a lesser charge) occurred, that does not mean that whatever so-called "sex" he perceived matched Samantha's account of things.
It does not mean he gave her drugs. It does not mean she said no. It does not mean he stuck it in her pooper.
I mean for all we know, she just jumped into the jacuzzi nude with him and grabbed his dick and he's thinking "oh well I guess that's a handjob and a kind of sex, even if I didn't consent to it"
What makes everyone think Polanski initiated things? What if HE is the victim of Samantha initiating sexual acts with him to get ahead, and he simply wasn't able to avoid it?
He might have been interested in her, wanted to see her in a wet swimsuit, I'll give you that, it would explain how things could get that far, but anything beyond that is pure speculation.
Polanski said she was into it, and he did not say anything about himself being into it, so that's what I'll listen to believe in.
Samantha Gailey sexually assaulted Roman Polanski and he was framed for sexually assaulting her. PROVE ME WRONG.