Comments:Court rejects Polanski bid to have child sex charges dismissed

In 1970, Sharon Tate and her 8-month old child were among the many murdered by a hound (on second thought, I'll give hounds the benefit of the doubt) named Charles Manson. While many of his cultist followers have since repented of their monsterous offenses, Manson has not. He will pa dearly for his crimes. That said, Roman Polanski is just as much pond scum as the animal-demon hybrid that murdered his wife and child: The drugging and sodomizing of a thirteen-year-old girl is the lowest of sins, even if you do make good movies. Rocker Charlie Daniels has said that "the lowest form of animal life... is a child molester." Kudos to him. Shame on anyone who defends this insect. He is indefensable. And yes, Whoopi Goldberg, what he did was "rape-rape".


 * No it wasn't. He wasn't convicted of that. What's more, he can be defended on the basis that a previous court ruling has stated there was evidence of misconduct during the trial. I personally believe he is guilty, including of "proper" rape, but in the interests of justice I want a second trial - preferably one where rape charges are put before a jury. "The drugging and sodomizing of a thirteen-year-old girl is the lowest of sins" - amen to that. Let's have a decent trial. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)