The Facts About Polanski

[berni_mccoy]

I was away this weekend and surprised to come back to the implosion that was DU over the Polanski case.

So, I thought I'd cover some facts about Polanski:

1. He raped a 13 year old girl when he was 44 using alcohol and quaaludes and continued to rape her even when she resisted to the best of her ability.
2. He plead guilty to the crime of unlawful sex with a minor (aka Statutory Rape) and was convicted. This conviction does not classify him as a child rapist and he would not be required to register as a sex offender under California law: http://www.sexlaws.org/california_statutory_rape#Q5 . The penality is up to one year in jail and it is a misdemeanor, not a felony.
3. He jumped bail and fled the country, first to the UK for 1 day and then to France (where he was a citizen).
4. France refused extradition as was their right under treaty. They also refused to prosecute under French law as requested by the U.S.
5. In travelling to Switzerland, he was stopped and arrested under the original 1978 arrest warrant which is still active.
6. Switzerland has refused France's request to extradite to France as a matter of equality before the law.
7. The victim, Samantha Geimer, wanted him to face justice in 2003, but has since forgiven him in 2008:
In 2003: "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us...I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it".
In 2008: I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever - besides me - and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."

It seems pretty clear-cut that Polanski is going to be extradited at the request of the U.S. and made to face judgement for the crime he was convicted of.

You can like or hate his movies, you can like or hate the man, you can rail for or against this arrest, but the man is going to face justice for what he did.

[EmilyAnne]

1. Thank you for posting this. I can't believe the irrational defense of Polanski I have seen on DU.nt

[JuniperLea]

2. Thanks to grantcart for posting a link to testimony...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html

If anyone here can read this and STILL defend that asswipe, they need professional mental health assistance, STAT!

[helderheid]

125. Thank you for the link!

[Thickasabrick]

3. Some of your facts are incorrect. The United States has never

asked France to prosecute him there. The US also did not issue an International Warrant until 2005.

I doubt very seriously Polanski will be extradited to the US. See the Russian case in 2005, were the US had a fraud charge warrant, the man was arrested in Switzerland, however because he was a Russian citizen, he was returned to Russia for trial after the Russians stepped in. I'd be willing to bet money the same happens again.

[berni_mccoy]

6. Washington Post, Feb. 3, 1978:

"The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office announced yesterday it will seek to have Polanski extradited from France."

http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html

[Thickasabrick]

10. Yes, but that is not the same as asking France to prosecute him.

Also, that was a mute statement since the treaties for extradition did not include the crime Polanski was charged with.

[berni_mccoy]

16. Sorry, I thought you'd read the rest of the article:

"However, a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice in Paris reaffirmed that French citizens may not be extradited under any circumstances although, he added, French judicial authorities could decide to try the case in France."

Obviously, they never tried him in France.

[Thickasabrick]

22. Because the US made no effort to suggest they try him there. nt

[Hannah Bell]

76. moot.

[ellenfl]

113. lol, my boyfriend does the same thing. i correct him all the time. eom

[polmaven]

146. self delete

n/t

[berni_mccoy]

9. Also, I never said U.S. issued an International Warrant, but rather that Switzerland honored

the 1978 warrant for his arrest.

[Thickasabrick]

11. They did not honor a 1978 warrant, they honored the 2005 warrant nt

[berni_mccoy]

14. "Polanski was detained Sept. 26 on a 1978 U.S. arrest warrant..."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=acnp0zi_Edgw

Official statement from Zurich police: "Polanski was detained Sept. 26 on a 1978 U.S. arrest warrant, Zurich Cantonal Police spokesman Stefan Oberlin said in a telephone interview."

[Thickasabrick]

18. Yes, the 1978 US warrant served as the basis for the 2005 International

Warrant. He had been visiting Switzerland during the entire 35 year period but it was not until they had the 2005 International Warrant that they were able to do anything....or at least that is my understanding of the warrant process.

[berni_mccoy]

39. Roman? Is that You?

[Thickasabrick]

21. Because of the 2005 International Warrant. It needs to be clear

here that the US did not actively pursue this until 2005. That is one of the big mysteries here.

[seabeyond]

23. who the fuck cares. the man raped a 13 yr old. ran from sentence. and been protected by france

all these years.

[Thickasabrick]

30. I care about facts....even though they can be pesky little things

at times.

[Hannah Bell]

47. punishment first, trial later.

[Flagg]

118. Polanski had a house in Switzerland

He stayed there for months at a time every year.

Looks like France isn't the only country who protected Polanski.
Besides, Polanski has traveled all over the world in the past decades. He never was arrested.

[pipoman]

92. Been following the news?

Things have changed in US/Swiss relations over the past few months. Switzerland isn't the safe heaven for international criminals it has been for decades, any longer. He will be extradited to the US if that is what the US wants...it ain't 2005.

[The Straight Story]

4. Raping a young girl is not all that bad, he made some good movies and had a plea deal

So we can give him a pass (brought to you by the same people willing to kick Michael Jackson's ass when he was found not guilty by a jury - he did not flee and stayed to face his charges).

If it is someone we like and has money, then we can give him some room on it all. If it is a person of color, poor, homeless, etc, well then when they rape a 13 yr old we are gonna rip him a new one.

Moral of the story: If we like you, what you do is not really bad (we can chalk it up to a RW conspiracy, etc). If we don't like you then what you did is wrong.

Bias anyone?

[seabeyond]

12. and your daughter is free game once she hits puberty.

i appreciate your thread and other posts. but this is what it is amounting to. listening to men speak on du for a while

girls are free game

and france govt told the world rape is insignificant. girls hold no value.

a govt.... told the world.... and all our daughters and sons

no. stop. take me home. no. no stop.

[The Straight Story]

28. We might not always agree

But I do with you on this one.

Some expect men to act in a certain way, as they do women. And somehow that justifies actions.

I resent it myself - it is as though some are telling me I cannot control who or what I am. And that goes to a lot more threads than these ones.

It is to me, if nothing else, a method of people projecting how they would act under a certain set of circumstances. They might well do something that others see as wrong, but they make it right by saying 'well others I know would do the same' as though that somehow justifies it.

A man drugged and raped a young girl, and to cast it any other way is just crap IMHO. He was the adult here, and he hurt someone much younger to fulfill his perverted desires. I don't give that a pass on any level.

[bettyellen]

40. people actually excused it because the Mom let her pose nude- so if you're raised like shit...

and you're Mom's a money grubber with no sense- people think it's an excuse to treat you like human garbage.
DUers actually gave him a pass for this reason, which creeps me out. He bought his way out of this, and that sucks.

[Vattel]

74. exactly, very well-put.

[Frank Booth]

82. +11

I've also seen some comment on how he'd had a hard life. I guess they figure between his movies and his background he'd earn enough points to get a free pass on a child rape.

[seabeyond]

83. pictures. but the girl does not say nudes. supposedly per victim

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20124052,00.html

mom did not know about the nudes.

[TorchTheWitch]

85. the victim says otherwise

That if her mother knew she had posed topless at Polanski's request she would have been angry and not have allowed her to go to the second photo shoot which was the one where he drugged and raped her.

I've seen quite a bit of blaming of the mother here but haven't seen anything that justifies it. The mother was certainly naive and should not have allowed her daughter to be photographed by anyone without trusted adult supervision as it is a parent's responsibility that they never allow their children to be placed in a situation where they may be taken advantage of or harmed.

[bettyellen]

133. I know- people blame her mother because she was an agent, kid wanted work- so it;s okay to try and

fuck her. you know because she wanted something, she needs to accept puttiong out is part of the price. That's absolutlely okay with the apologists here.

[TorchTheWitch]

179. just another excuse to add to the already long and repulsive list

of why a celebrity rapist of a child should get off scott free.

:puke:

[Hepburn]

If he bought his way out of this, explain why he was arrested. n/t

[closeupready]

150. 100% spot on.

Revolting.

[CoffeeCat]

15. Sex crimes are like that...

If a guy robs a bank--people will think, "Wow, I guess I didn't know the guy. I must have been wrong about him. He's trash."

But if a guy--especially an upstanding citizen molests a child--the thought processes aren't like that. People don't WANT to believe
that they were so wrong about someone--that they will doubt the victim. It's more challenging to face the fact that your neighbor, coworker,
pastor, poker buddy or insurance salesman is a child molester--than it is to doubt the victim.

This happens all of the time when it comes to crimes like this.

Society is in such denial about child molestation--and it is in part, due to the fact that victims have such a hard time coming
forward because people just cannot come to grips with the fact that one in four girls and one in four boys is sexually abused
before the age of 18--and that it's the pastor, the guy next door, your accountant or the soccer coach who is doing this.

Denial and other shock-diffusing behaviors take over when it comes to sex crimes against children.

[Hannah Bell]

77. strawmen brought to you by the same folks who created them in the mj case.

[pipoman]

93. Apologists for child rapists...

as long as they are wealthy entertainers, brought to you by the MJ Pity Party.

[ampad]

78. I was wondering about that

I surely hope the same folks who spoke out against MJ are not taking this sick bastards side. I also hope those that are calling for the head of Michael Vick are not taking up for this sick bastard. Bottom line is that he raped a 13yr old girl. IMO it does not matter the age of the victim. Although, as a parent it makes me sick to my stomach to know that the victim was 13 at the time. I do not care how long ago it was, how many films he made, WTH ever. He committed a sick crime and who is to say that this poor woman is his only victim. He needs to do time for what he did. Sick, disgusting bastard that he is.

[Demeter]

189. I Thought His Movies Stank, Personally

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

5. Was there a plea bargain?

I don't know enough about the case. If his plea was in exchange for and conditional upon a particular agreed-to sentence with the authorities, wouldn't that be a fact that should be listed as well?

[berni_mccoy]

8. Yes, he plead guilty in exchange for reduced charge.

[seabeyond]

13. and didnt he get the reduced charge, them kicking 5 of the 6 charges. he wanted no time

and was afraid judge would give him time because he arrogantly flaunted his freedom in some other country with some other something and judge was pissed

[Thickasabrick]

26. Well if the judge did that and was considering actions made by the

defendant unrelated to this case, then the judge should have been dismissed.

[seabeyond]

27. they had not come to sentencing. the man ran, cause he knew what he was being charged with

would result in a SMALL amount of time behind bars. he refused and ran.

[Thickasabrick]

29. He came back and was informed the judge was going to renege on the

deal. The victim's lawyer even said that he would have run too.

[berni_mccoy]

31. Now you are just spouting made-up shit. You don't know that to be the case.

Mr. Polanski may have realized he made a mistake and thought he was going to get off scott free. When he realized he was going to do time, he decided to run.

[Thickasabrick]

33. I have the testimony of the victim's lawyer. You need to watch

the documentary....and catch up with "facts".

[seabeyond]

35. the documentary is sided from what i have read. why in the world do you

believe a movie made to make this man innocent of rape.

[berni_mccoy]

38. Um, statements made in a biased "documentary" are not "testimony"....mmmkay.

[Thickasabrick]

41. Um....statements made by only one side does not make it true. nt

[berni_mccoy]

42. And what side would the facts be on?

[Thickasabrick]

45. There was never a trial. He pled guilty to sex with a minor. He has

never admitted raping, drugging, etc., therefore, those charges are not facts. The victim's grand jury testimony is her side of this but we have never heard Polanski's side since there was not a trial. I do not automatically assume that the victim's story is true, if everyone did - there would be no need for trials.

[MajorChode]

167. It doesn't really matter which side you believe

The facts are pretty clear. He plead guilty and as part of the agreement he was to be sentenced by the judge after a 42 day psychiatric evaluation. On the day that sentencing was to take place, he skipped the country.

Those are the terms that his lawyers drew up and he agreed. Now you seem to think he deserves another bite at the apple.

[roguevalley]

86. I don't give a damn what his lawyer said. he raped a child. If we cannot

agree with accountability on this, then what about all the other fuckers? What about Rumsfeld? Its been years since he raped a country. Do we just let that go too?

[seabeyond]

34. that is how i am reading it. on the numerous accounts i have read.nt

[sabrina 1]

73. It is the case, both the prosecutor and the victim's

attorney were appalled by the behavior of the judge, who is now dead. The victim herself has stated that her own treatment and Polanski's at the hands of the judge did her more harm than the incident itself.

Facts, they are out there and the words spoken by all the individuals involved, have always been available. There is quite a lot about this case that apparently many who are screaming are doing so without knowing much about the legal case. The reason for the difference in the attitude of Eurpopeans, not just the French, is because they followed the trial, the behavior of the judge was appalling, and just about everyone agreed, at the time, that he, the judge, should have been dismissed.

[justiceischeap]

99. That's all fine and good, the judge was a schmuck but

That doesn't make his fleeing the country to avoid his punishment okay. Any person with courage of conviction stands up, takes the punishment, appeals the case. It's not like he didn't have the money to do so. HE.RAN.AWAY! What does that say to rape victims? That if the rapist doesn't like the outcome of legal proceedings and has the money & means to escape punishment, then by all means, please do so.

The fact of the matter is, he plead guilty to statutory rape, then evaded the law when he didn't like the potential outcome.

[MajorChode]

169. You're taking a lot of liberty with the available information

You're also calling things as facts that aren't facts.

The only one who said the judge's behavior was appalling was Polanski's lawyers. Since they had no other defense at that point, this is not surprising. One thing they held as proof of their claim was a friend of Polanski's supposedly overheard the judge saying he was going to get Polanski. If you believe that, I have a couple of bridges I can sell you on the cheap.

[seabeyond]

32. that is what THAT SIDE put out. not what i have read anywhere on the

nonbiased sites. any of them.

but a good story told for the defense to excuse him

[Thickasabrick]

37. There are always two sides, you just refuse to acknowledge one. nt

[seabeyond]

43. omfg.... defending a man that agreed to rape..... and then buying his story to run away

and not face consequences.

[Thickasabrick]

46. He never pleaded guilty to rape. NT

[seabeyond]

48. yes. he did. the minute he said yes to sex with 13 yr old. FACT. nt

[Thickasabrick]

50. So....since her 17 year old boyfriend and her were having sex at the

time....was that rape too???

[seabeyond]

52. talk about so totally irrelevant and nothing to do with this rape. nt

[Thickasabrick]

53. He never pled guilty to rape. He pled to having sex with a minor.

He has always maintained that he did not know she was underage and that it was consensual.

You keep bringing up the age, so again I ask you, was her boyfriend raping her?

[seabeyond]

55. he raped a 13 yr old girl. he knew her age. he called mom asking permission to take pictures

you know this. so why would you lie by admission for your position. that tells everyone now, that the info you put out isnt the truth or isnt the whole truth. so you become insignificant in defense. that is what happens with lies

[Thickasabrick]

59. In business matters, I think you need to be 18 or over to sign or

agree to anything. You would need a parent's permission if you were under 18.

[seabeyond]

63. oh fuckin bullshit. and then without even knowing you hand out that dribble. nt

[Thickasabrick]

67. Well, the law is 18 where I live, but in all honesty I don't know the

law concerning contractual matters in California or what they were in 1977.

[Althaia]

163. age of sexual consent in california is currently 18

I guess it's that high because of the porn industry based there. Most states are between 14 and 17.
I have no idea what the age of consent was in Cali in 1977, but I seriously doubt it was 13. Since the girl could not legally consent to sex at 13, it's still rape, whether she permitted it or not.

[Gwendolyn]

72. The word is drivel, and on this one point, it's you who's handing it out. n/t

[redqueen]

106. What point is that? (nt)

[Gwendolyn]

115. That Polanski called the mother to ask permission to take photos. Purely invented. n/t

But some people are having such catastrophic meltdowns over this, they're completely losing it online, for the whole world to see.

[redqueen]

116. I don't believe for one second that he believed she was of age.

So it's irrelevant anyway IMO.

I find it completely unsurprising that you characterize the disgust at the apologia for this man the way you did.

Completely and utterly unsurprising. I could say more, but there's no point.

[Gwendolyn]

119. My only comment about this whole thing...

has been to compare it to the Ira Einhorn case, where people were not at all opposed to having him extradited, even though he seemed to have "turned his life around." I also said I thought he should be returned to face his crime. Further, I have always thought Polanski has issues about young girls in general, and wouldn't find it surprising if there were others out there, either silent, or paid off.

It doesn't surprise me that the same one or two people who come on DU every day railing against men for hours would suddenly have grand mal seizures over this and feel the need to get up early to post and check in at night to continue banging away at the keyboard with growing incoherence.

I do know that Polanski's films have played in this country for the last 30 years. He was honored with an academy award for the Pianist. I've never boycotted or protested at any of these films, so I won't be a hypocrite and suddenly scream outrage. Can any of the few people who are literally hysterical about this, claim any better behavior? What have YOU done about it?

I can't tell you how relieved I am that you find it unsurprising that I am unlike the people I've referenced.

[redqueen]

121. You're reading the wrong message into my post.

Good luck. Nothing more to say to you.

[Gwendolyn]

172. Oh brother. n/t

[billh58]

156. I realize that

this is totally off-topic, but I have not seen it mentioned anywhere about Polanski's wife, Sharon Tate, and their unborn child, being brutally murdered in 1969 by the Manson family. Although that incident does not excuse his criminal behavior almost ten years later, it had to have fucked up his head to some extent.

I can recall ALL of the Late-Night TV hosts making obscene jokes about Polanski's rape episode, both before, and after he fled the country. And you are exactly correct: the moral outrage being exhibited on DU now is 30-years too late for those who contributed to Polanski's success as a filmmaker over that same period of time.

In the events leading up to Polanski's flight from justice, he and the prosecutors had agreed to a plea bargain (he pled guilty to, and was convicted of, not rape, but "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor") which would have allowed him get off with "time served" (45 days). Polanski got wind that a Superior Court Judge would not honor the deal, and instead of manning up and facing the music, he bailed.

Since his victim is now refusing to testify against him, the only realistic new charges against Polanski would appear to be for "unlawful flight." Any additional charges of rape, or sexual misconduct may be negated by statute-of-limitations provisions.

[Gwendolyn]

175. I'm sure the horrors he's experienced have colored his life and art as well.

But it's no excuse and that's probably why not many have posted about it.

I was only two when the whole thing went down, so don't remember the jokes or original outrage, but have always been under the impression that he was guilty of statutory rape from the spotty reportage over the years. If they get him back, he'll have to answer to the fact that he ran as well as what's going to be left of the rape sentence, if there is one. But he's always known that he's a fugitive, basically and that the hammer could drop any moment.

I always viewed him much the same as guys like Gainsbourg (who wrote the most incredible erotic love song of all time), maybe Roger Vadim et al. You enjoy their art, but avoid reading about their trophy women collecting habits.

[TorchTheWitch]

181. the SOL clock stops when the accused/criminal becomes a fugative

And for good reason. Otherwise criminals can run and hide until the SOL clock runs out thereby getting off scott free.

[seabeyond]

117. i read an article that says mom knew the guy from previous. that he met mom, sister

and her and asked to take pictures. mom said ok. no mention of nudes.

he knew her age.

and to state i am having a meltdown, means nothing, just a cute little ploy the less than honest poster makes to dismiss.... again, you dont know fuck all, just mouth off

[Gwendolyn]

120. You should go outside sometime. This can't be healthy. n/t

[Gwendolyn]

71. You're very much correct. You have to be 18 to sign a model release form.

A minor release form (which is what would've applied to this girl) requires the sig of a parent or guardian.

Not sure where people are getting this idea that the phone convo was about asking permission to take pics. That's not in the girl's testimony. It's not completely clear what it was about, but part of the convo was to let the mother know that the shoot would be going late in the evening.

Even if the phone call was about taking topless/naked pics, that wouldn't imply that Polanski knew she was below the age of consent since permission from a guardian is required up to the age of 18. Written permission though, so a phone call would've been worth bupkiss anyway.

[Hannah Bell]

79. "he called mom asking permission to take pictures"

link?

don't link me to the transcript, it doesn't say that.

[suzie]

153. In the plea bargain, he specifically states that he knew the girl was 13.

So when did he lie? When he stated under oath in a courtroom that he knew how old the girl was?

Or when he was speaking with sympathetic listeners outside of a courtroom?

[imdjh]

7. Should a man be allowed to buy his way out?

I realize that in our legal system, the crime is against the state, but in practical terms we think of it being against the victim.

If I were Samantha, I would much rather have another wad of cash dropped on me than to get "justice".

[Liquorice]

24. Absolutely not. But he could of course be sued in civil court as well as tried criminally. nt

[hughee99]

44. He already has been...

I believe he settled with the victim for an undisclosed sum sometime between 2003 and now.

[orleans]

90. the girl did sue him

"From his home in Paris, Polanski settled a civil suit by the victim, Samantha Geimer, for an unspecified amount, and she publicly forgave him.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski28-2009sep28,0,523154.story

[ellenfl]

17. i don't recall it that way. my recollection is that

the girl claimed to be of age and that her mother was somehow involved . . . looking for acting fame, maybe? he was never charged with anything involving drugs or alcohol . . . just the rape charge. i may be thinking of someone else so i will do a little research.

and no, i am not his apologist.

edit: the fact that he asked her if she was on the pill or when she had her last period indicates to me that he did not know her actual age. in those days, girls that age were not on the pill so i doubt he would have asked her that if he thought she was only 13. you cannot gauge by today's teens but, in those days, not many 13 year olds would agree to pose semi-nude for an older man. there is more to it than his picking her up and raping her. the rape took place during the second photo shoot. where was her mom?

ellen fl

[berni_mccoy]

19. Link here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski#Sex_crime_conviction

[Liquorice]

20. Jeez, Polanski and his people sure put out a lot of propaganda, didn't they? nt

[seabeyond]

25. her testimony. rape. and there were 6 charges, they dropped 5 so she would not

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html

have to take the stand and he could plead out

[ellenfl]

94. i'm not blaming the victim here ( but maybe her mom),

but she already used drugs and alcohol and was not a virgin. i could see how he might think she was older. she could have left her clothes on, not done the drugs or walked away, but she didn't. where was her mom in all this? i suspected at the time and believe now that mom was after a payday or 'stardom' for her kid. well, she got the 'stardom' part, albeit anonymously.

ellen fl

[seabeyond]

95. i posted an article for you to read. and she says her mom didnt know, when she did she did somethin

about it. read the article.

he had met her mom, her sister and knew her age.

she said NO. no stop. take me home. no. take me home. stop

all of that

is

rape

but read the article above i posted for you

on edit.... here

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20124052,00.html

[ellenfl]

101. according to that account, she perjured herself in court. eom

[seabeyond]

102. anything else. like sharing specifics? nt

[ellenfl]

103. read the court transcripts at the link posted in this thread. eom

[seabeyond]

104. so... allegation. refuse specifics. is this a game?

cant just simply say?

[ellenfl]

109. excuse me but it was you directing ME to read a post in this

thread to clarify your position. i am just pointing out that your criticism of me not reading the thread seems to apply to you as well. the transcripts are posted here in a link. did you not read them?

from what i recall of her testimony, and what i already posted here, she had sex twice before, not once, and she had taken ludes and been drunk before her encounter with polanski. there are a couple other discrepancies with what she told people magazine and what she told a court, under oath. if you read the transcripts linked above, you will know.

ellen

[seabeyond]

110. i havent seen a link. nt

[ellenfl]

112. look in post 2 and post 25 (just above one of your posts). eom

[seabeyond]

114. ty. nt

[suzie]

155. I have sat behind reporters as they watched a case going on in court.

And then read the accounts in the newspaper. Rarely do they get the details exactly correct.

But you want to say that the female victim perjured herself because an article in People Magazine many years later doesn't state exactly the same thing as in her sworn Grand Jury testimony?

Wow.

[chatnoir]

61. Also not an apologist

But that was my recollection of what happened as well.

Edit for typo

[seabeyond]

64. so... right above you on this subthread is more info. nt

[NashVegas]

157. Does Ignoring Sworn Testimony She Said "No" Repeatedly Also

Not make you an apologist?

Roman Polanski raped a scared, 13 year old kid.

[chatnoir]

180. According to her Houston came to the door

And Polanski went to speak to her in the middle of all this.

Why Geimer did not raise the alert or ask Houston for help, esp if she was afraid of him, I don't know.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6639021&mesg_id=6645046

[TorchTheWitch]

185. shame, fear, shock, drunkenness

Could be any number of reasons. She was 13. She was stumbling drunk. She didn't know Houston and wouldn't have known if she'd get any help from her. For all she knew Houston could have been in on it... after all, Polanski had no problem doing what he did with her in the house and showed no sign that her presense was any kind of a deterent. At the time Houston came to the door she believed the ordeal was over and put her panties back on. It's extraordinarily common that victims of sexual assault feel great shame and disgust afterward and don't even want to be seen by anyone even those who are likely to help them.

Nobody really knows how they'll react in such a situation until their in it. I don't know why you would expect a victim of rape who is a child and stumbling drunk/stoned would behave as rationally as an armchair quarterback.

[suzie]

154. Polanski himself testified that he knew her age to be 13.

Why are you trying to make up reasons why he wouldn't have known she was 13? He testified to that fact in court.

[JonQ]

36. 8. He made some good movies

so points 1-7 are discarded.

[Prophet 451]

49. Then he will serve the term he was sentenced to

Which is as it should be. He may well get a couple of additional charges for his flight from justice. The law may be slow but it catches up in the end.

And I actually like the guys movies. But I decided around the time of the Benoit Tragedy in wrestling (when world-class wrestler Chris Benoit went off his head and killed his family then himself) that the only realistic way to deal with stuff like this is to seperate the art from the artist.

[seabeyond]

51. i dont think it got to sentencing. "he says" he was sure book was gonna be thrown at him so ran

so now he does sentencing, and yes, should have added charges.

the way it would work with all of us

plea should be dismissed and the 5 charges thrown out, bring them back

[Prophet 451]

57. Yep, equality before the law

At it's best, the law should treat rich, famous and talented the same way it treats poor, obscure and mediocre.

I would imagine the plea deal will now be thrown out. As it would be for any of us. The additional five charges, it depends whether they were dropped or thrown out. If they were thrown out, they can't be brought back due to Double Jeapardy rules but if they were dropped, they can now be reinstated.

All of which will not diminish his art but he may end up being remembered as one of those men who are largely forgotten while their art lives on (which may be the most fitting sentence of all).

[seabeyond]

60. i got your point on the difference. i will have to remember wording. dropped is what happened

they pleaded him down to one.

i hope

i will have to keep ears open for that.

[TorchTheWitch]

182. the other charges were dismissed

by virtue of his plea bargaining.

Since he reneged on the plea deal by fleeing I think all of the charges should be brought back... as would be the case for the average Joe, but since he's a celebrity, no doubt whatever happens now will be somewhat confined by the original deal.

[TorchTheWitch]

186. he was never formerly sentenced

as he fled hours before his sentencing was to commence.

[elocs]

54. Polanski should be prosecuted, but on a list of important things going on in the world

where does this fall?

[seabeyond]

56. with all the rapes of our girls, rapes that arent being prosecuted.... it is up there.

with a govt that ignores the rape of this girl only to whine how mean the u.s. is for going after this great 76 yr old man, telling the world that rape doesnt matter.... it is up there.

[elocs]

58. But where exactly? Top ten? More important than the Iran story?

Actually he is exactly as bad as all the other pedophile rapists out there no matter who they may be.

[seabeyond]

65. we have to rate. why? are we competing in some manner? not necessary

it is what it is

and i agree that art, money, hard life, thinking with his small head, her not being a virgin, bush/cheney, 76 yr old, 30 yr later, has nothing to do with it.

[elocs]

171. So, who exactly is saying that "rape doesn't matter" because I've missed that one.

As the father of a daughter who just turned 18 I have to say that rape matters very much. I do think this high profile rape case is drawing attention away from hundreds of other rape cases which are just as bad and worse when the victim is killed.

[JonQ]

80. Should we only punish the top 10 most evil people of the year?

And let the others go?

[elocs]

173. Concerning my post, do check your reading comprehension

because I never said a word about letting anybody go. That being said, I don't think Polanski is anywhere near being one of the top ten most evil people of the year.

[Nye Bevan]

96. I tried a similar argument last time I got a speeding ticket.

Unfortunately the cop didn't buy it.

[seabeyond]

97. ya, but did you rape a girl? speeding ticket, rape. no comparison. JAIL

for ticket.

[elocs]

174. Did you miss the part in my post where I wrote: "Polanski should be prosecuted"?

:shrug:

[TorchTheWitch]

187. and this matters why?

The world has always been fully capable of dealing with multiple things at once.

If you find the level of importance to be low on the list of "important things" why are you wasting time here and not in a thread discussing what you believe is a more "important thing"? By virtue of your presense and participation, you yourself are finding it more important than other "important things".

[Captain Hilts]

62. He used drugs and alcohol on a 13 year old. Not acceptable. nt

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

66. I don't see why this is being debated. He had raped a 13 year old in his 40's.

he deserves his punishment.

[seabeyond]

68. 44. nt

[berni_mccoy]

69. He was 44 when he raped a 13 year old. He didn't have sex with her. He RAPED her.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

70. you're right. i'll edit. nt

[rollin74]

75. K&R

[JonQ]

81. The only reason he has any sympathy around here

is for his artistic achievements.

I wonder, would a skilled mechanic, or CEO be given the same consideration? Or are some people more important than others, and held to a different standard?

Progressive.

[Odin2005]

88. Punishing rapists is so BOURGEOIS, dontcha know?

:eyes:

[NashVegas]

158. May Be Because

He's already on the record as having copped to the charges, so the usual suspects have to restrain themselves from outright calling Samantha Geimer a "lying whore."

[varelse]

84. For you, I have a rec

To all the apologists: Let me ask you this - if this had been a 13 year old BOY, would you have the same attitude toward this act?

[proteus_lives]

87. He should face justice and serve a lengthy prison term.

And all the rape-apologists can go to hell!

[berni_mccoy]

89. yep.

[JeanGrey]

91. Look, why should we protect Polanski's asshole, when he

violated hers, right? He wouldn't be in such terror if he didn't know ALL ABOUT IT

[Nye Bevan]

98. Question for the many apologists here

If Polanski gets off the hook, what kind of message does that send to the creepy uncle who happens to find himself alone with his 13 year old niece at a time when she is emotionally vulnerable? "Come on sweetie, Polanski did it..."

[seabeyond]

100. and what does that say to the 13 yr old raped by the creepy uncle? doesnt matter dear

raping you matters..... NOT

free game on the girls

[Dr. Strange]

108. The message is...

he better be an artist and better get his ass over to France.

[redqueen]

105. "The penality is up to one year in jail and it is a misdemeanor, not a felony"

I can't believe this.

I was away from DU for a few days... and I just cannot believe what I'm reading.

The fact that this is a misdemeanor is bad enough... but the comments here, from DUers... I won't even bother reading this thread. It's not worth it. I learned my lesson from the others. Fucking hell. :(


I couldn't resist... I had to see who all on here would defend rapists. Sickening... incomprehensible.

[seabeyond]

107. and beyond. nt

[berni_mccoy]

111. I agree. I wish they could overturn the conviction and charge him with all 5 counts

but that would violate double jeapordy since he is already convicted.

I cannot believe for the life of me that this rapist is defended on this site.

[ellenfl]

122. i cannot judge when i don't have all of the facts.

if he knew her age and did what he did, then he is guilty of statutory rape, if california law recognizes statutory rape. according to the sentencing guidelines,consensual sex with a minor seems to have a different punishment than rape of a minor. i don't know yet what he did or did not know and neither does anyone else here.

there are plenty of under-aged hookers in this country having sex multiple times daily. i don't see any outrage here for those girls nor do i see any johns being prosecuted for rape.

to the women here, how old were you when you first had sex? did you send your boyfriend to jail for raping you?

doesn't the fact that 5 of the 6 charges were dropped tell anyone that the stories might not be what we know from the media? does everyone here trust the media that much?

i will not convict him before he has his day in court.

ellen fl

[berni_mccoy]

127. Um, he's already been convicted of statutory rape. He's had his day in court.

He skipped out of the sentence.

[ellenfl]

135. where did you get that? he took a plea deal that the judge

planned to vacate. when did he have a trial?

ellen fl

[WeekendWarrior]

123. Not to be a stickler, but

Your "fact" number 1 says:

"He raped a 13 year old girl when he was 44 using alcohol and quaaludes and continued to rape her even when she resisted to the best of her ability."

While Polanski is certainly guilty of statutory rape -- which he PLED guilty to -- he has always maintained that the sex was consensual, so most of the above is not fact any more than Polanski's version is. It is, instead, merely testimony given by the minor in question. Is she telling the truth? Is Polanski? Only the participants in the act know for sure.

The prosecutor, for whatever reason, agreed to a plea deal with Polanski, reducing outright forcible rape charges to a "sex with a minor" misdemeanor that would not require Polanski to register as a sex offender. Prosecutors don't usually accept such radically lesser pleas unless they feel, for whatever reason, that they don't have the evidence to convict on the original charge.

NOW DON'T GET ME WRONG HERE. I'm NOT apologizing for Polanski. I think that what he did -- whether consensual or not -- IS SICK AND TERRIBLE and that he should be punished according to the law. But we have no way of really knowing THE FACTS in this case. For all we know, the act WAS consensual and the victim had regrets after the act, especially when her mother found out about it. I'M NOT SAYING this is what happened -- and that it is ANY WAY excuses Polanski for what he did, but I'm concerned when people proclaim that "these are the facts" when such "facts" cannot be verified.

There are, as well all know, two sides to every story.

From a strictly legal point of view we have testimony and a plea. According to the law, Polanski had sex with a minor. According to the law, such a conviction is punishable up to a year in jail.

Emotionally, I find such a thing reprehensible, whether or not the rest of it is true. The crime AND the punishment.

But the law cannot and should not be ruled by emotion. Emotion is what leads to witch hunts and the like. Not a good thing.

[berni_mccoy]

124. WTF. It was TESTIMONY. If she was lying, he would have fought the case, not plead guilty AND RUN.

[WeekendWarrior]

126. Testimony is a tricky thing

Testimony is not fact. Testimony is a recounting of events from one person's point of view. A point of view that is always clouded by bias, no matter how well-intentioned. If Polanski can lie about it, so can the victim. Did she? Did he? We have no way of knowing, other than what our GUT tells us -- which does not mean it's a fact.

But you obviously haven't read my post or you don't understand how the law works. POLANSKI plead guilty to sex with a minor. That's not the same as what is stated in the OP's #1 "fact." Why he ran reportedly had nothing to do with the crime itself, but with apparent gross misconduct of the original judge -- which, according to a later court ruling by another judge, is true.

If we're going to apply the law, we need to apply it equally, with fairness, and not based on emotion.

That said -- again -- I'm NOT apologizing for Polanski. If he were to go near my thirteen year old daughter he probably wouldn't even make it to trial.

[berni_mccoy]

128. He's already been convicted so it doesn't matter. He needs to face justice and serve time.

[WeekendWarrior]

129. Well, yes, it does matter.

When people start proclaiming "facts" that aren't factual, I start to get upset. Because those "facts" could just as easily be applied against an INNOCENT man, something that happens every day. And it's wrong.

While I have no sympathy for Polanski, I do have concern for innocent people who are smeared by such so-called facts on a regular basis. I think it's important that we be VERY CAREFUL in throwing accusations. We've had a couple of cases in the last couple years -- cases involving alleged sexual misconduct -- which have resulted in such "facts" being successfully refuted by the evidence. Yet the accused have already had their lives ruined by these "facts."

And this is the ONLY reason I've brought this up. Not to defend a statutory rapist.

Unless you TRULY have the facts, STFU.

[berni_mccoy]

130. The facts are that is her testimony and he never denied it. In fact, he plead guilty.

[WeekendWarrior]

134. Actually, he has denied it

"Polanski was 44 and already a twice-Oscar-nominated director in March 1977 when he had sex with Samantha Gailey, a 13-year-old model he had hired for a photoshoot, at Jack Nicholson's house in Los Angeles. He has argued that the sex was consensual, saying the girl was 'not unresponsive', though Gailey said he drugged her with painkillers and champagne before carrying out a 'very scary' assault."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/27/roman-polanski-arrest-switzerland-custody

Has there been any testimony by Polanski in which he admitted that he drugged and raped her? If so, I'll stand corrected. But from what I know of the case, he plead to a lesser charge of having sex with a minor, not to drugging her. Based on what I've read this morning, this is apparently a felony, punishable up to twenty years. The family of the victim also urged the judge to accept Polanski's plea on the lesser charges: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html

So, the facts as we know them are:

1. The victim testified that Polanski raped and drugged her.

2. Polanski claims the sex was consensual.

3. The family requested that the judge accept Polanski's plea to a lesser charge and drop all remaining charges.

4. Polanski pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and served time in jail for psychiatric evaluation.

5. Polanski fled the country before final sentencing.

None of which makes him a hero. But again, let's get the facts right.

[berni_mccoy]

138. He admitted to the crime in a court of law before a judge knowing the consequences. CONVICTED.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea6.html

[WeekendWarrior]

141. Well, now, that's one fact we can agree on. :) nt

[NashVegas]

161. So You Didn't Hear the Tree Fall In the Forest

Hey, that's fine for you.

But Samantha Geimer has gone public. She has repeatedly, 30 years after the fact, maintained she was coerced into being used for sexual intercourse, both vaginally and anally. She has maintained she wants the charges dropped and she wants to get on with her life.

I'd say she's pretty much resigned herself to not ever seeing legal justice. But what you, and others cannot seem to understand is the harm you're doing in repeatedly minimizing the seriousness of Polanski's crime when the record really doesn't leave much doubt about what happened.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html

[justiceischeap]

131. 9. He pled guilty to a FELONY, not a misdemeanor.

If you'd read the Plea Transcript on Smoking Gun, you'd all know the FACTS.

FACT: The attorney for the girl who was raped, sent a letter to the judge and DA asking that they urge Polanski to take this plea agreement so her name would not be made public and she wouldn't have to go through a trial. (page 17 of SG document)

FACT: Polanski pled guilty to a FELONY with a penalty of 1-15/20 years. (page 7 of SG document)

FACT: Because Polanski had "unlawful sexual intercourse" with a 13 year old, he was ordered to undergo MDSO (mentally disordered sex offender) proceedings. If found MDSO, he'd have to register as a sex offender and would be sentenced to time in a mental facility. (page 7 of SG document)

FACT: If after the MDSO proceedings were completed, the judge had the discretion on sentencing. (page 7 of SG document)

Therefore, the judge stated from the very beginning that after completing the MDSO hearing, he could still get jail time. It wasn't after he spent 30 or so days in the facility that the judge said, yup, you're going to jail. It was stated in the plea agreement that was a likely possibility.

FACT: reading documents publicly available makes your argument of a situation that much smarter.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html

[tammywammy]

132. shush you and your silly facts. n/t

[berni_mccoy]

136. Thanks. Looks like the law has changed since he was convicted. I'd issue a correction

on this if I could.

[WeekendWarrior]

137. Corrected Post

Apparently, I misunderstood and this was not directed at me. My apologies.

[berni_mccoy]

139. He DID Rape a 13 year old girl. THAT IS A FACT as evidence in a court of law that he admitted to.

[WeekendWarrior]

140. Yes, and I've said as much

But the OP's fact #1 says considerably more than that. And that is my ONLY point.

If you can play loose with the facts in this case, you can play loose with the facts in ANY case. And that isn't right.

Whether we like it or not, there is a difference, under the law, between forcible rape and statutory rape.

[berni_mccoy]

142. When he admitted to the crime, her testimony was known to him. He made no denial.

And his more recent denial during an interview is counter to his admission in court. I'll take his admission in court and failure to deny any of her testimony as fact.

[WeekendWarrior]

144. You apparently have no understanding of how the courts work

Her testimony was grand jury testimony. Such testimony serves only as evidence to the grand jury so that they can decide whether or not the case should proceed to trial. The defendant is not present during this proceeding, and he has no right to refute such testimony or cross-examine the witness. The only one presenting evidence at that time is the prosecuting attorney. And the grand jury is not deciding guilt or innocence. They're only deciding whether they feel there's enough evidence to move forward with the case.

This was not a trial. There was no trial.

Polanski entered a plea to a lesser charge. He was not required to and had no reason to deny her allegations or testimony, because that had nothing to do with the proceedings at that point. What you see is what you get. You cannot read Polanski's failure to address her charges of drugs, etc. as an admittance of guilt to any other crime than what he plead to.

In fact, by NOT entering a plea to the other charges, he was, in effect, denying those charges.

You may not like it, but that's the way the court works.

[justiceischeap]

147. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a defendant had a right to speak at grand jury hearings

Is that not so? If it is, could he have not taken the stand during the grand jury and refute the facts?

[WeekendWarrior]

148. No, He Can't

In a grand jury proceeding, the defendant isn't allowed to say anything, and in most cases I know of, is not even allowed to be present at the time. Grand jury proceedings, in fact, are supposed to be secret. The girl's testimony should NEVER have come to light in this case.

You're probably confusing the grand jury proceeding with the preliminary hearing. Sometimes a prosecutor will request a prelim rather than a grand jury proceeding. In such cases, the defendant is allowed to cross-examine any witnesses.

Which is why most prosecutors tend to go the grand jury route.

ADDITION:

I served on a federal grand jury for a year. In my time there, I discovered that the old truism that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich was absolutely true. We had one case in which the defendant was clearly innocent of the charges, but because the majority of the members of the grand jury did not understand the technology involved, the defendant was bound over for trial anyway.

It was at that moment that I realized the grand jury is nothing but a rubber stamp for the prosecutor. I think we'd be much better off if every prosecution was forced to go the preliminary hearing route.

[justiceischeap]

149. I'll have to do some further research but some states allow the defendant to testify

At grand jury hearings... the legal phrasing is "intention to testify." It's allowed in NY, that I've found so far.

[WeekendWarrior]

151. Well, there's a difference between testifying and confronting a witness

In most cases, the grand jury is secret. In MANY cases, the potential defendant doesn't even know the grand jury is hearing a case involving him or her.

A defendant may well be allowed to testify in some grand jury proceedings -- although I believe it's unusual -- but they would not be allowed to a) be present during witness testimony; and b) cross-examine that witness in an effort to discredit that testimony.

The Grand Jury is designed merely to examine evidence and decide if the prosecutor has enough of it to go forward with a trial. If the Grand Jury says no, which is rare, then the case does not go to trial.

[Thickasabrick]

168. Thank you for weighing in on this. That is scary about the ham sandwich

part. :(

[WeekendWarrior]

170. Ha. Tell me about it.

I sat in the jury room with twenty(something) people (can't remember the exact number), six of whom were technology oriented and knew this guy was innocent, but the rest of them voted to send him to trial -- despite our vehement pleas on his behalf.

But the worst part of all, was that some of the jurors voted in favor of the indictment because one of the witnesses against him was "really cute." And they said that's WHY they voted to send the case to trial. "How could someone so cute be lying?"

I just put my head in my hands and wept.

[Thickasabrick]

177. OMG!! Was this before or after the upswing in reality TV? I sincerely

believe reality TV has become people's real world. You really should write a book about your experiences. You could add stuff like that to make it funny. I had no idea Grand Jury's worked like that.

Welcome to DU!!

:hi:

[WeekendWarrior]

178. This was about eight or so years ago.

Right around the time Georgie boy was stealing the election.

[justiceischeap]

143. Here are the original 6 indictments handed down by the grand jury

1: Furnishing a controlled substance to a minor
2: Lewd or Lascivious act upon child under 14
3: Unlawful sexual intercourse (what he pled guilty to)
4: Rape by use of drugs
5: Perversion
6: Sodomy on a person

Here's a link to the original 1977 indictment
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/polanski/capolanski31977ind.html

Whether 'Rape by Use of Drugs' is rape or statutory rape, I don't know...

[WeekendWarrior]

145. And, as you say, Polanski pled only to Unlawful Sexual Intercourse

which is Statutory Rape. His plea was accepted by the judge based on the wishes of the family.

[berni_mccoy]

164. Unlawful sexual intercourse = statutory rape.

[madmusic]

184. Thanks for posting that

I took the pundits word for it that the sentence was up to 3 years, which it is now under the determinate sentencing laws. But his plea was when sentencing was indeterminate, like 1 to 15.

We still don't know if there was an informal agreement that was binding. His prosecutor at the time indicates there was in the documentary and since he was there and involved he knows far more than we do. The written transcript will carry more clout whatever informal agreement there was.

This will be interesting to follow.

[TorchTheWitch]

188. there's no such thing as an informal binding agreement

And damn good thing there isn't... imagine the things people could be threatened or coerced into agreeing to that would be binding! This is why there is a formal on the record proceeding which all parties, including the judge, have to agree to so there can be no mistake in what is being agreed. When a person peads guilty as part of a plea agreement they give up very important rights like the right to a trial. However, as indicated by the section of the penal code the judge cited, the judge is not bound to the agreement even after formally accepting it. When that happens, the defendant has the right to back out of the deal as if it was never made, the guilty plea is thrown out as if it was never made, and the case proceeds on that basis.

[Taverner]

152. But what should the punishment be?

If and when he goes to court, he can get any sentence ranging from suspended sentence (no jail time) due to time being "served" in France to 25 years to life.

No one has disputed that he raped the girl.

[billh58]

160. Except that

his first trial ended with a plea-bargain where Polanski was found guilty of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor," and not rape. Because his victim is now refusing to testify, it appears that the only additional charges he may face, would be for unlawful flight.

[TorchTheWitch]

190. there was no trial and he was not found guilty

By virtue of the plea agreement, trial was waived. Polanski was not found guilty - he pleaded guilty.

Because of his fleeing he reneged on the plea deal which automatically throws out the deal (at least that's what occurs to us regular people). The other charges are only dismissed AFTER sentencing for the charge(s) plead guilty to (in this case, the one charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor). Since Polanski reneged on the deal by fleeing before sentencing, all the other charges should automatically be reinstated. However, since Polanski is a wealthy celebrity and the victim doesn't want to testify against him it's extraordinarily doubtful the other charges will be reinstated and he'll be tried on them all. He absolutely will be held accountable on the charge he already had plead guilty to, however, since the sentence is so arbitrary from probation to years in prison, there's really no telling what will end up happening as far as that charge is concerned.


http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE58Q0RT20090928
<snip>
Amid protests from his native France and from his former homeland of Poland, he now faces a court battle over extradition, and perhaps even a new trial in Los Angeles.

"Some form of justice will finally be done," said Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley. "He received a very, very, very lenient sentence back then, which would never be achievable under today's laws, and we'll see what the court wants to do in terms of the sentence and the parameters within the case settlement they had back then."

He did not say what sentence prosecutors would recommend.

[berni_mccoy]

162. I was wrong on one point above. The severity and punishment have changed since he plead guilty

He was convicted, but never sentenced. At the time, what he plead guilty to was a felony and could be punishable up to 15 years. He hasn't served any of that time beyond jail time for the hearing. He also would face new charges on running from the law and would face whatever penalties there are for that crime. That too would require a trial if he decided to fight the charge of evasion.

[H2O Man]

159. Recommended.

Absolutely on target. Thanks.

[Danger Mouse]

165. Thank you for posting this. Heartily recommended.

[DailyGrind51]

166. She was only 13, that should be enough reason to prosecute.

[onehandle]

176. My gut says no. The Swiss picked him up as a peace offering to the U.S.

He has a home there and now suddenly he's picked up? Why now?

There is political payola going on (don't look at this Nazi gold, look at Polanski).

Not defending him, but I think he'll ever set foot on American soil for justice.

[kath]

183. It was FORCIBLE rape, not just statutory rape - guess he was able to plead out and only get charged

w/ statutory.