The French justice system is not adversarial like yours; it is investigative, devoted to ferreting out the truth, whatever its source. As I said, the defense has the rights to challenge a witness, a testimony (which they often do) and present contrary evidence or mitigating circumstances.

It is true that some of the laws were changed in the 1980s and I haven't researched what the sentence might have been like in 1978.

If, hypothetically, the criminal complaint had been filed in 1978, and accepted, there is no doubt that the actual trial would have taken place no later than 1980, possibly 1979. A trial like that would probably not last more than one week, two at the most.

After having said all that, my point here is not to argue the respective merits and faults of our justice systems. Our system has worked rather well since Napoleon and there hasn't been a massive amount of miscarriages of justice, etc., etc. So please take it for granted that a trial of Mr. Polanski in France would have been both fair and speedy.

I will repeat that the only thing that could have gotten Mr. Polanski off the hook would have been if the girl had told the Magistrate that she had lied and she had not had sex with Mr. Polanski. That would have been considered exculpatory. In any other case scenario, Mr. Polanski would very likely have been found guilty.

My original question, for which obviously no one has any answer, remains, why didn't the California authorities follow that course of action?

Personally, I believe they did not want to go after Mr. Polanski at the time, which is why I also believe that, by not file charges against him within the 10 year French statute of limitations, they have now lost the right to go after him. I hope the Swiss authorities will deny their extradition request.

I would like to revisit another point which got lost in the discussion: that of Mr. Polanski's inalienable right, as a French citizen, to be tried in France -- especially when confronted with a blatantly corrupt justice system in Los Angeles.

That Mr. Polanski left the US jurisdiction does not strike me in the least as wrong. There was a publicized child custody case recently involving France and Russia. The facts were pretty much as follows:

-- French husband, Russian wife marry (not sure where), have one daughter, start living in France

-- They divorce; two procedures; French court allocates custody to father; Russian court to mother

-- Russian wife somehow returns to Russia with child

-- French father goes there, takes the child, returns to France

-- Russian court condemns father in absentia, issues warrant, which can't be enforced

-- Russian wife & buddy come to France, beat up husband, take the child back

-- French court condemns mother, issues warrant; Each parent is now a fugitive from justice in the other's country.

-- Romanian authorities somehow catch Russian wife & child before they cross into Russia & lock them up pending a resolution (being part of EU they have to enforce French warrant)

-- Diplomats get involved & broker a custody deal between the two parties, accepted & signed, canceling all criminal charges on both sides, which can be enforced by tribunals of either country on equal footing.

This is why the "he is a fugitive from justice" argument carries relatively little weight outside of the US context. Mr. Polanski was not an American and I do not consider he did anything wrong by removing himself from a questionable court.

Hypothetically, had the DA immediately filed a criminal complaint in France, and had Mr. Polanski, in his desire to avoid doing time, left France as well, he would been the subject of two international warrants, none of which he could avoid in the west. I think the only possibility left to him would have been to return to live in then-Communist Poland, since he is also a Polish citizen by birth.

Where the system failed is that he should gave been tried in France, where his likely fate would have ironically been more severe, but he wasn't because neither the victim nor the California authorities chose to pursue that course of action. Which was their right, of course.