This thread has so much! It's about that freak Polanski. Look at the opinions fly. First, wouldn't you know it, Margie is defending him:
------
#26. To: Mad Dog (#25)
This is about a man who fled sentencing for a FELONY SEXUAL ASSAULT ON A MINOR which he had admitted guilt of.
That's not true. He was sentenced to 90 days, after entering the guilty plea. The judge changed his mind later, threatening Polanski with a new sentence. The case had been settled in court, with a $500,000 dedommagement to the victim, who does NOT want the case reopened.
Marguerite posted on 2010-05-05 14:33:26 ET ------
Like what the fuck eh!!!! Maggies on the side of pedophiles, lol. What a dumb bitch.
Ok, notice who's kicking ass on that thread. Fucking Mad Dog, haha. As much as I can bare to read his posts that is.
This Dwornock dude is fucked. Look at his posts. Perhaps one of the biggest loons over there. A sleeper.
And MM even seems to be kicking ass, but who can read much of his.
So, right away at post 8
------
#8. To: cranky (#0)
He may have had sex with a willing girl. No crime in that. In any event, he was lied to by the judge. I hope the Swiss say "No" to evil criminals in the USA.
dwornock posted on 2010-05-03 7:05:53 ET ------
#15. To: BunnERabbit (#14)
It all lies. She went there, dressed, looked, and claimed to much older and seduced him for bragging right. Just because she asked for champaigne doesn't imply he force it on her. You don't say "No" to a sexy woman that asks for a glass of champaigne. She seduced him; he didn't in any way take advantage her. Naturally, after the police got involved they threatened her and forced he to tell lies. That is standard operating procedure.
It is done and over with. She certainly was no virgin. Leave the man alone. It is just like the Duke non-rape case; it is all political and the prosecutors lie to get votes.
dwornock posted on 2010-05-04 7:33:48 ET ------
It just keeps on .........
Poster Comment:
btw, i'm not proofreading anything. just write and post.
