She says when she said that ["It was something, but I don't believe that it was 'rape-rape'"], she was only referring to the legal charge against Polanski at the time 30 years ago, which was unlawful sex with a minor.Alrighty then, let's get legal.— Meredith Vieira
Unlawful sexual activityCheck.
with a personCheck.
(usu. a female)Check.
and usu. by force or threat of injury.Usually, but not a requirement. Check. Rape. And that's giving Polanski the benefit of the doubt, as a colorable argument might be made that Polanski's seductions were coercive to the point of force, not to mention the actual physical circumstances of penetration.
Just because a criminal statute may not use the word "rape" doesn't mean the activity implicated by the statute doesn't constitute rape, as defined. In Wisconsin, for example, it's called sexual assault.
Another oddball claim making the rounds is that 'the judge reneged on the plea deal.' Not possible. Judges are not parties to plea deals.
Otherwise what in tarnation would be the point of the sentencing hearing that Roman Polanski took flight to Europe to avoid? Because Polanski was concerned that the judge was not going to abide by the deal and recommendation his lawyer had struck with the prosecutor.
I mean, he wasn't scheduled to appear before a notary public.*
* No offense to notary publics.