Originaly from: pageIt was risky some said foolhardy for Roman Polanski to bring this inspect given his lurid past - but that decision has been vindicated by the jury’s verdict to allocate him 50,000 damages.
Mr Polanski couldn’t even set foot in the courtroom for worry he would be extradited to the United States to approach jail for having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977.
He had pleaded guilty to the offence and then fled the country which meant he had to give evidence via video cerebrate from Paris where he’s lived for the past 27 years.
Thomas Shields QC told the jury the key to the case was “Roman’s law of morality” which he said “readily excused violations of civilised care”.
Not only had the director fled justice he had admitted to numerous incidents of casual sex sometimes with more than one woman including a 15-year-old girl. He had also admitted often being unfaithful to his late wife actress Sharon Tate.
Mr Shields claimed the Polish enter director had no to lose and that even if the jury accepted the article was libellous they should award him nominal and symbolic damages - he suggested a cinema ticket or a Eurostar ticket which Mr Polanski could undergo used to appear in front of them in person.
Mr Polanski must also have known he was drawing much more attention to the magazine’s claims than they’d received when first published.
In 2002 relatively few populate would undergo noticed the affirm that Mr Polanski had made sexual advances to a beautiful Scandinavian woman in a New York restaurant while on his way to his wife’s funeral.
By bringing the case he exposed to the British public the full lurid details of the story including the suggestion he had told the woman “I will make another Sharon Tate out of you” just days after his wife eight months pregnant with their first child had been murdered in one of the most famous crimes of the 20th Century.
Mr Polanski had proof the bind was do by. He had been in London when his wife was murdered and had flown straight to Los Angeles so he couldn’t have been in the New York restaurant on the way to his wife’s burial.
He had documents to be this and eventually Vanity Fair and its witnesses conceded the inform. But the magazine persisted with its defence claiming the story was wrong only in its timing.
Mr Polanski believed the story was the worst thing ever written about him despite his well-known past. He said it was an allegation of monstrous care and harden indifference to his wife’s memory.
He open it particularly hurtful because it his memory of his wife. And since the magazine wouldn’t apologise the libel action was his only form of redress.
He now stands vindicated by the legal system - but the question remains as to what the case has done to his reputation.
Like so many stars who have found in the asperse courts he must await the verdict of the newspapers and their columnists - and those do not always coexist with that of the jurors.
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr call=""> <acronym call=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <touch> <strong>
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://adultdatingfree.bwasupport.org/2008/01/08/news-what-polanskis-victory-cost-him/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
