Roman Polanski

[MrBug708]

Child Molestor, Director, Oscar winner


Only in Hollywood?

[cthomer5000]

Marion Barry. Mayor, Crack Addict, Mayor.

[mrskippy]

The crime happened in ... the 70s. Everyone else gets their hand slapped for heinous crimes, why not Mr. Polanski?

[MrBug708]

I guess a molesting a child can be forgiven provided it happened 30 years ago?

Absolutely not!


But I have personal reasons for feeling this way

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by MrBug708
I guess a molesting a child can be forgiven provided it happened 30 years ago?

Absolutely not!


But I have personal reasons for feeling this way

So fundamentally speaking you don't think anyone should/can ever be forgiven for some crimes?

Do you believe rehabilitation is possible? Or do you think people will always be what they are?

just wondering.

[STK]

not child molestation

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
So fundamentally speaking you don't think anyone should/can ever be forgiven for some crimes?

Do you believe rehabilitation is possible? Or do you think people will always be what they are?

just wondering.
Um, the problem is the guy's never paid for his crime. He left the country and can't ever come back. Hopefully none of your children (if you ever have them) are subjected to child molestation. I'm sure you'd just want to see him rehabilitated. Maybe they could do therapy together? :rolleyes:

Tarkus

[clintl]

FWIW, I read an article a couple of weeks ago in which the woman he molested when she was 13 said that Oscar voters should not hold that against him.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by STK
not child molestation

What about murderers? OJ Simpson?

[MrBug708]

Well, OJ was found not guilty. That would be one nice lawsuit on his behalf

Murder, Child Molestation, and Rape are crimes that the person might truly be sorry for, but should have everlasting consequences because something so great has been broken. I'm assuming the average person hasnt been directly affected by any of those?

As Michael Moore said, thats the way I feel, thats the beauty of Free Speech.

Now, I'll go hide behind the first amendment

[Qwikshot]

Actually the woman who was the victim wants it to end because it's always an issue whenever any issue pertaining to Roman Polanski comes up, so she has to relive it constantly because it's never been resolved...so I feel for her, she wants it to end so that she can fade into obscurity.

[mrskippy]

What Polanski just charged or was he actually convicted by a jury?

[MrBug708]

Skipping out on a country to avoid charges is rather damning evidence. Especialy since he's banned from coming back



Editting for relevancy

[stkelly52]

But should the character of the director come in to play in voting for this catagory? Shouldn't the award be for who ever did the best job of directing, reguardless of his past crimes.

[MrBug708]

Sure, why not?


Life isn't fair. Just ask his victim

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by MrBug708
Skipping out on a country to avoid charges is rather damning evidence. Especialy since he's banned from coming back



Editting for relevancy

Well, he's not banned. He'll just be arrested.

[MrBug708]

Pretty darn close

[mrskippy]

Than he can post bail and get his award. And than go to trial and be acquitted.

[MrBug708]

Heh.....I'm sure he probably would have long ago. Its not like he'd have worse press

[QuikSand]

If Polanski did indeed do the best job directing a film last year (I have no opinion on that premise), should academy voters still support someone else because of his misdeeds?

[User #2735]

Originally posted by QuikSand
If Polanski did indeed do the best job directing a film last year (I have no opinion on that premise), should academy voters still support someone else because of his misdeeds? No. The award is for best directing job...not best directing job that was performed by a non-child molester.

Doesn't change the fact that I think he should be locked up for life, though.

[Easy Mac]

Leonard Little killed someone and got to play in the Super Bowl. Where was the outcry for that?

[Marmel]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Leonard Little killed someone and got to play in the Super Bowl. Where was the outcry for that?


I outcried.

Nobody listened.

[Fritz]

How does Polanski differ from Woody Allen IRT sex with minor?

[Hammer755]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Leonard Little killed someone and got to play in the Super Bowl. Where was the outcry for that?

Little stood before a court of law and took his punishment. Was his sentence a little light? No, it was a lot light, but that's irrelevant to this point. But at least he didn't skip the country to avoid prosecution.

[User #2735]

Originally posted by Fritz
How does Polanski differ from Woody Allen IRT sex with minor? Because unlike Soon-Yi, Polanski's encounter was/is claimed to be non-consensual by the girl.

[Fritz]

I did not know Soon-Yi could give her consent as a minor.

[Hammer755]

Originally posted by Fritz
How does Polanski differ from Woody Allen IRT sex with minor?

I had to look it up, but Soon Yi Previn was 21 when their relationship began, while Polanski was involved with a 13 year old.

[sachmo71]

FWIW, I read an article on Yahoo news that quoted him as being rather unrepentant about the whole thing. At least he was at the time the quote was taken, which was probably quite a few years ago since he refuses to talk about it. Still, I was a bit shocked that almost to a man the entire theatre applauded him. It seemed to me that some people would hold his crimes against him, but maybe they are more mature in hollywood than I, or it is much easier for them to seperate the art from the artist.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Hammer755
I had to look it up, but Soon Yi Previn was 21 when their relationship began, while Polanski was involved with a 13 year old.

Mia Farrow claimed it started when she was a minor. I admit that is about all I know

[Hammer755]

Originally posted by Fritz
Mia Farrow claimed it started when she was a minor. I admit that is about all I know

My source was Biography.com, I certainly don't know it for a fact. Even so, even if she was 18 or 19, that is a far cry from 13. Maybe not legally speaking, but realistically it is. I'm not sure if you're looking specifically at the legal aspect, however.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by sachmo71
FWIW, I read an article on Yahoo news that quoted him as being rather unrepentant about the whole thing. At least he was at the time the quote was taken, which was probably quite a few years ago since he refuses to talk about it. Still, I was a bit shocked that almost to a man the entire theatre applauded him. It seemed to me that some people would hold his crimes against him, but maybe they are more mature in hollywood than I, or it is much easier for them to seperate the art from the artist.
Yeah, the extent of the reception amazed me too. Guess it's okay to be a child molester, but anti-war sentiments are taboo. Go figure Hollywood.

Tarkus

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Hammer755
My source was Biography.com, I certainly don't know it for a fact. Even so, even if she was 18 or 19, that is a far cry from 13. Maybe not legally speaking, but realistically it is. I'm not sure if you're looking specifically at the legal aspect, however.

The age of consent in NY is 18 (at least it was when I was in high school - don't ask me how I know).

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Samdari
The age of consent in NY is 18

How do you know?

[JeeberD]

Originally posted by Fritz
How do you know?

www.ageofconsent.com (http://www.ageofconsent.com)

Looks like NY's age of consent is actually 17...

[Samdari]

Sigh, the reason I asked the class not to ask, is because the answer is not nearly as salacious as I would like. As an upperclassman, I had a thing for freshman girls. There was some debate among myself and my friends as to the age of consent. I researched the matter. For the record, none of the freshman girls actually ever consented. Rumor has it, none of them even considered it.

Now, my secret is out. In high school, I was neither cocky, nor funny.

[JeeberD]

Doh, Fritz was trying to be funny. Oh well, that site has some interesting information anyways...

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Samdari
Now, my secret is out. In high school, I was neither cocky, nor funny.

dull dull dull dull dull

please lie to us in the future

[Fritz]

Originally posted by JeeberD
Doh, Fritz was trying to be funny. Oh well, that site has some interesting information anyways...

I discoved that site a few weeks ago while looking for some information.

Age of Consent in SC is 14. If Polanski could have held out for a year he might have had a magic trip in Hilton Head.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Fritz
I discoved that site a few weeks ago while looking for some information.


MY TURN!

Why were you looking for such information Fritz?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Samdari
Why were you looking for such information Fritz?

In one of the discussions here someone was using the law in one state to support a position that something was universally moral or desirable. I went looking for lowest age of consent (thinking it was WV) and found that site.

I can't rember what the topic was, but I know I posted on the 5th about it.

[Young Drachma]

Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland the other day.

Roman Polanksi Extradition Raises Questions About Arrest - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/International/roman-polanski-hires-swiss-lawyer-arrest-1978-us/story?id=8689949)

There's a debate as to whether or not he should have been. Which seems strange to me.

[Glengoyne]

I've actually been waiting to see if he'd screw up. This news story made me smile.

[Subby]

Has anyone had a more bizarre life than Polanski? I think you'll see an oscar-nominated film about it within five years of his passing.

[Young Drachma]

Has anyone had a more bizarre life than Polanski? I think you'll see an oscar-nominated film about it within five years of his passing.

True. It's Forrest Gump-like in its bizarreness.

[Ben E Lou]

Thread moved from archives per user request.

[molson]

I think you could argue its a waste of resources if he hadn't been concvited yet - it might be a tough case to try at this point with all those years and an unwilling victim. But he's already been convicted. He just needs to come back and do his time.

It's an interesting question though, whether he should be sentenced by 1970s standards (when this kind of stuff had MUCH lighter penalties) or by today's more harsh standards. I'm not talking about actual statutory guidelines - obviously, he has to receive a sentence that would have been legal at the time of his crime. But should a judge, or even can a judge, otherwise take into account the changing of our cultural landscape and public sentencing expectations for crimes like this.

Also, we need better international extradition treaties. Especially with Mexico. It's way too easy to commit a crime here and then flee there to avoid prosecution.

[Izulde]

FWIR, he originally pled guilty via plea bargain and the judge in the case decided to rescind the plea bargain, which led Polanski to leaving the country.

[Izulde]

Also, age of consent laws, particularly in those states with lower ages, usually have some sort of qualifiers attached to them.

[molson]

FWIR, he originally pled guilty via plea bargain and the judge in the case decided to rescind the plea bargain, which led Polanski to leaving the country.

True, but the plea was made, and its still out there, still binding. He just needs to be sentenced. He fled because it appeared that he wasn't going to just get probation, as all parties had agreed to recomend to the judge.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9NX_D0Bv9M0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9NX_D0Bv9M0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Whoopi Goldberg, national treasure.

[lungs]

Can somebody explain why he is being defended so intensely by some? I'm not very cultured and don't really know who he is.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

He escaped the ghetto in Poland while his mother died at Auschwitz.
He directed Rosemary's Baby.
His pregnant wife was murdered in his house by the Manson family.
He directed Chinatown.
Then, he raped a 13 year old.

[larrymcg421]

The amusing thing about this thread is I see people were using the default Leonard Little argument 6 years ago.

[RainMaker]

I think you could argue its a waste of resources if he hadn't been concvited yet - it might be a tough case to try at this point with all those years and an unwilling victim. But he's already been convicted. He just needs to come back and do his time.

It's an interesting question though, whether he should be sentenced by 1970s standards (when this kind of stuff had MUCH lighter penalties) or by today's more harsh standards. I'm not talking about actual statutory guidelines - obviously, he has to receive a sentence that would have been legal at the time of his crime. But should a judge, or even can a judge, otherwise take into account the changing of our cultural landscape and public sentencing expectations for crimes like this.

Also, we need better international extradition treaties. Especially with Mexico. It's way too easy to commit a crime here and then flee there to avoid prosecution.

He should be sentenced by 1970's standards. But he should also have to deal with any additional time for running away.

I'd comment more on this but last time I said it was wrong for a grown man to fuck girls this age, I got yelled at for it.

[albionmoonlight]

If drugging and sodomizing 13 year old girls is wrong, then I don't want to . . .

ah, fuck it. I can't even joke about that. The bastard is lucky he's managed to stay out of jail this long. He pleaded guilty under oath, so he admits to having done the crime. He's just managed to escape the punishment by fleeing the country.

[lungs]

He escaped the ghetto in Poland while his mother died at Auschwitz.
He directed Rosemary's Baby.
His pregnant wife was murdered in his house by the Manson family.
He directed Chinatown.
Then, he raped a 13 year old.

So it all goes back to Hitler.

[Karlifornia]

Not much sympathy for him. He's had some personal turmoil that I wouldn't wish on anybody, but that doesn't make you any more impervious to the law than anyone else.

[JediKooter]

From what I read, he was going to get slapped with probabtion and credit for time already served. He's French, why is anyone surprised he ran away when things got tough?

[bhlloy]

Time heals a lot of things. Not sure raping a 13 year old is one of them though.

And while it really sucks for the victim that this keeps getting dragged up through the press, that's really on Polansky as well for skipping out in the first place. Fuck him. Or are we now rewarding people for managing to avoid being brought to justice for so long? That's a great message to send.

No comment on whether he deserves to win an Oscar. Don't find it hard to believe that there are other Oscar winners/Hollywood notables who have done equally fucked up stuff and not been caught...

[CamEdwards]

Wow... Whoopi Golderg's attempted defense is painful to listen to.

[JPhillips]

What the hell is wrong with these people? Yes, I'm sure he's an erudite dinner guest, but he drugged and raped a thirteen year old girl. She said no and he stripped her naked. She said no and he performed oral sex on her. She said no and he raped her. It's not a close call.

It's especially infuriating knowing that we're executing some percentage of innocent prisoners to be tough on crime. And his MacBeth sucks.

[Groundhog]

Anyone that defends this guy is an idiot. Worse even. Someone close to me had something very similar happen to them when they were slightly younger than Polanski's victim, and has so many issues because of it that it breaks my heart. In this person's case the attacker also was never punished.

[Samdari]

Anyone that defends this guy is an idiot. Worse even. Someone close to me had something very similar happen to them when they were slightly younger than Polanski's victim, and has so many issues because of it that it breaks my heart. In this person's case the attacker also was never punished.

Well, he only pled guilty because he was promised no jail time (there was no case without the victim, who did not want to testify). The judge sent him to prison for 42 days, and was going to send him for 48 more.

WIth the victim wanting it over, he should be sentenced to time served for the original charge.

And he should be in prison for the rest of his life for fleeing prosecution.

[albionmoonlight]

Well, he only pled guilty because he was promised no jail time (there was no case without the victim, who did not want to testify). The judge sent him to prison for 42 days, and was going to send him for 48 more.

I don't know how his plea agreement went, but most of the time you accept a plea, it is made clear to you that the judge, not the prosecutor, sentences you. Accordingly, the prosecutor can only promise to recommend a sentence. When you swear under oath that you committed the crime, you are doing so with the knowlege of what the maximum penalty is and that the judge can impose it if she or he wants.

In a lot of plea cases, the real action is in trying to plea to a crime with a low maximum sentence, especially if the judge is known as a hang 'em high type.

And I had no idea that the times involved in this case were so low. 3 months for raping a 13 year old? He should have kissed the judge and prosecutor for letting him get away with rape if that's the case.

[Neon_Chaos]

I suppose a lot of things get fucked up in your head when your wife and unborn child are murdered.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[Kodos]

I hope that's not an attempt to excuse what he did.

[I. J. Reilly]

I suppose a lot of things get fucked up in your head when your wife and unborn child are murdered.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

I hope that's not an attempt to excuse what he did.

Can I +1 both of these?

[Neon_Chaos]

I hope that's not an attempt to excuse what he did.

Nope, not an excuse.

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[Kodos]

Cool. Obviously, something that traumatic would mess with your head. But it would never justify anything he did later.

[Neon_Chaos]

Cool. Obviously, something that traumatic would mess with your head. But it would never justify anything he did later.

Agreed. He should be held liable for the shit that he did.

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[larrymcg421]

Anyone that defends this guy is an idiot. Worse even. Someone close to me had something very similar happen to them when they were slightly younger than Polanski's victim, and has so many issues because of it that it breaks my heart. In this person's case the attacker also was never punished.

Not that I'm defending Polanski at all, but the problem with making blanket statements like this is that you're calling the victim in this case an idiot.

[SportsDino]

Lock him up for as long as he avoided jail, to the day... if he survives that long. Sounds fitting to me.

[SteveMax58]

Not that I'm defending Polanski at all, but the problem with making blanket statements like this is that you're calling the victim in this case an idiot.

Misguided, then? Likely for the same reasons her parents would send her off with a grown man to photograph her without being there with her?

[claphamsa]

I hope that's not an attempt to excuse what he did.
no but it is reasoning to stick him in a loony bin instead of Oz!

[CamEdwards]

Love this quote from Harvey Weinstein.

"Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion," Weinstein said. "We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe."

In Roman Polanski case, is it Hollywood vs. Middle America? -- latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-polanski1-2009oct01,0,1755914.story)

[Samdari]

I don't know how his plea agreement went, but most of the time you accept a plea, it is made clear to you that the judge, not the prosecutor, sentences you. Accordingly, the prosecutor can only promise to recommend a sentence. When you swear under oath that you committed the crime, you are doing so with the knowlege of what the maximum penalty is and that the judge can impose it if she or he wants.

In a lot of plea cases, the real action is in trying to plea to a crime with a low maximum sentence, especially if the judge is known as a hang 'em high type.

And I had no idea that the times involved in this case were so low. 3 months for raping a 13 year old? He should have kissed the judge and prosecutor for letting him get away with rape if that's the case.

I understand that the prosecutor is only agreeing to recommend a sentence. But, aren't these followed most of the time? Like 99.9%?

3 months would have been the judge's sentence (and there is a lot to suggest that this judge was not looking for justice for the girl, but publicity for himself). The plea agreement would have been no time. The prosecutor only gave the no-jail-time agreement at the request of the family, who preferred not to continue on with the case. Polanski's motivation was to get it over with and out of the newspapers. Woops, that did not work too well.

[cthomer5000]

FREE R KELLY!

[Autumn]

Yeah, I don't understand the defense of him at all. He should have been brought back any one of those 32 years. I'm sure he was surprised, but he can't really cry foul. He's been deliberately avoiding "capture" for 32 years, it's not like he's some naive innocent here.

It's odd that they suddenly made this move to bring him in, but what does he have to complain about? Thirty two years of freedom? Not ever having been raped? It's nice that she forgives him, but there's a reason we don't let victims decide the punishment in the criminal justice system.

[bronconick]

Love this quote from Harvey Weinstein.

In Roman Polanski case, is it Hollywood vs. Middle America? -- latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-polanski1-2009oct01,0,1755914.story)

What a jackhole. I wonder who was actually donating the money in those telethons. Amazingly, I've found it rather easy to donate to the Red Cross without being told what to think by some star.

[albionmoonlight]

I understand that the prosecutor is only agreeing to recommend a sentence. But, aren't these followed most of the time? Like 99.9%?

In federal court, no. In state court, much more so. I have no idea what the practice was in California in the 70s. But, even if it was a "99% of the time" thing and he was going to get screwed b/c of the judge . . . well, that happens.

If he took a plea agreement that exposed him to active time in order to "just make it go away," then he still made that cost/benefit choice.

Maybe it's b/c I'm a defense attorney, but when there is an offer on the table, I think that you need to explain to the client the best case, worst case, and likely case if they take the deal. Same as if they go to trial. And, while we work for the best case and expect the likely case, we make darn sure that our clients understand the worst case.

It sounds like Mr. P didn't plan for the worst case.

[Young Drachma]

I wonder how long it'll take them to get him here while they negotiate all of this. But Hollywood's reaction is despicable.

[BrianD]

I'm just going to be very short and sweet with it but I just feel that he made his mistake and he just needs more support. Nobody’s a perfect person in the world. Everyone kills people, murders people, steals from you, steals from me, and I just feel that people need to give him a chance. I always looked up to Roman Polanski and I always will just because I think he’s one of the best directors. I love Roman Polanski and I look up to him a lot.

[Kodos]

Is this a Noop parody?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Is this a Noop parody?

No, it's an idiot college QB parody.

[Axxon]

What the hell is wrong with these people? Yes, I'm sure he's an erudite dinner guest, but he drugged and raped a thirteen year old girl. She said no and he stripped her naked. She said no and he performed oral sex on her. She said no and he raped her. It's not a close call.

It's especially infuriating knowing that we're executing some percentage of innocent prisoners to be tough on crime. And his MacBeth sucks.

Hey, it's all part of being a victim. It's 30 years later, she still says no and we're fucking her now.

I couldn't give a flying fuck about Polanski. He deserves everything bad that can happen to him but there's no way to do it without reharming the victim and we'll gleefully do that. What the fuck? Im asking as one of these victims too. It stops being about us the minute the abuse ends. Then, we become society's victim.

If my molester wasn't dead and someone tried to put what happened to me on an international stage, I'd go ahead and eat my gun and I'm not even famous. Can you imagine her having to describe to the ecstactic masses of the entire world how he shoved his cock up her ass? . It wouldn't be worth it opening a wound that is already closed and can't get better reliving it to punish a septagenarian who likely can't even get it up any more

. I'm sure others would feel otherwise but she asked for this to be over before it even started. Basically, when they started shooting the HBO documentary she wanted it stopped because again, she was brought back to the assault that society has no intentions of letting her heal from.

Be glad fuckers that you don't have the capacity to see what abusers you are.

Now, simply on the fleeing charge, sure, why not. Making this woman relive a rape for society to get its nut off once again at her expense... I wish someone would go ahead and nuke this fucking species into extinction. We don't deserve this planet.

Well, of course we could just put a cap in Samantha's head so she won 't have to suffer any more and everyone can enjoy fucking with Roman because lord knows and in all honestly he deserves it and of course, even though she absolutely doesn't count as a human being we can at least pretend to be moral.


Then blow the fucking place up and give a decent species a chance.

[Axxon]

And I'm out of this convo. I'm way too emotionally tied into the emotions that she's going through. I can't try to defend this in a logical argument. Not that anyone would care in any case.

[Axxon]

Roman Polanski's victim Samantha Geimer, now 45, 'got over it long ago' (http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/09/28/2009-09-28_roman_polanskis_victim_now_45_got_over_it_long_ago.html)


Roman Polanski's victim Samantha Geimer, now 45, 'got over it long ago'

BY Helen Kennedy
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Monday, September 28th 2009, 4:00 AM
Samantha Geimer at the after party held at the Plaza Hotel Grand Ballroom for the 'Roman Polanski:Wanted And Desired' HBO documentary premiere in 2008.
Corkery/News
Samantha Geimer at the after party held at the Plaza Hotel Grand Ballroom for the 'Roman Polanski:Wanted And Desired' HBO documentary premiere in 2008.
Take our Poll
Polanski arrested

Do you think the U.S. should pursue the criminal case against director Roman Polanski on three-decades old charges he slept with a 13-year-old girl?
Yes, sex with a minor is a crime. Period.
No, the victim doesn't want it pursued and it happened 30 years ago
I'm not sure
Related News

* Articles
* Polanski arrested in Switzerland on 1978 warrant for sex with minor

Roman Polanski's most compelling defender is the woman he raped at Jack Nicholson's house when she was just 13.

Now 45, Samantha Geimer is a mother of three who lives quietly in Hawaii and works as a bookkeeper.

In January, Geimer, who publicly forgave Polanski in 1997, filed a formal request that Los Angeles prosecutors drop the charges against him.

"I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr. Polanski may have caused me as a child," she said at the time. "I got over it a long time ago."

Geimer said Polanski had paid, and she wanted to move on and stop reliving the details of the assault every time he made headlines.

"True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother," she said.

In 2003, she wrote a generous Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times, saying Polanski should not be barred from receiving a Best Director Oscar for "The Pianist."

"I don't really have any hard feelings toward him, or any sympathy, either. He is a stranger to me," she wrote.

The last time Geimer saw Polanski she was a 13-year-old aspiring model lured to a house in the Hollywood Hills for a photo shoot. Polanski plied her with champagne and a Quaalude and took nude pictures of her in a hot tub, despite her requests to go home.

She told the grand jury Polanski then had sex with her and that she was afraid to resist "much."

The director later pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor.

"What happened that night, it's hard to believe, but it paled in comparison to what happened to me in the next year of my life," she said last year, when she appeared in a documentary about problems with the case.

In the end, she was relieved when Polanski fled because reporters stopped calling.

"He did something really gross to me, but it was the media that ruined my life," she told People in 1997.

Geimer did not comment Sunday, when the events of 31 years ago resurfaced once more and reporters started knocking on her door again.

[flere-imsaho]

It's amazing how we have national outrage over this and not over the fact that a) Texas just put a clearly innocent man to death and b) the governor of Texas just did his best to stop an investigation that would once and for all confirm the innocence of the deceased.

Texas Governor Defends Shakeup of Commission - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/us/02texas.html)

[molson]

Roman Polanski's victim Samantha Geimer, now 45, 'got over it long ago' (http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/09/28/2009-09-28_roman_polanskis_victim_now_45_got_over_it_long_ago.html)

Totally irrelevant to anything.

We don't want weird old guys drugging and raping 13-year old girls, even if the 13-year old girls eventually find their own peace with the situation.

There's a reason its "state v. defendant" and not "victim v. defendant". Victims are very, very often unwilling, particularly in crimes like this. That gives defendants a lot of power to carry out their crimes again and again, against different victims.

I'm sure Polanski hasn't stopped raping children. He'd be a rare cases if it hasn't happened again and again since then, says the recidivism rates for this particular crime.

[Axxon]

Totally irrelevant to anything.

We don't want weird old guys drugging and raping 13-year old girls, even if the 13-year old girls eventually find their own peace with the situation.
That is what I just said numbnuts. The victim doesn't fucking matter. She's disposable garbage. She should have already been given a mercy killing because we damned sure can't deny some good old voyeuristic recreational outrage. Thank you for reinforcing my point. No go pat yourself on the back for being a heartless, soulless knob because if assisting victims is meaninless then it makes no fucking sense to worry about victims that don't exist when you're just going to make THEIR lives worse while you keep chasing shit that hasn't happened yet.

Fucker.

[Axxon]

It's amazing how we have national outrage over this and not over the fact that a) Texas just put a clearly innocent man to death and b) the governor of Texas just did his best to stop an investigation that would once and for all confirm the innocence of the deceased.

Texas Governor Defends Shakeup of Commission - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/us/02texas.html)


Because silly, it's not about innocence or guilt. It's about potential victims and so there's got to be casualties on both sides. We're fighting a righteous war against the hasn't happened. Things like this are bound to happen. You never know.

[molson]

That is what I just said numbnuts. The victim doesn't fucking matter. She's disposable garbage. She should have already been given a mercy killing because we damned sure can't deny some good old voyeuristic recreational outrage. Thank you for reinforcing my point. No go pat yourself on the back for being a heartless, soulless knob because if assisting victims is meaninless then it makes no fucking sense to worry about victims that don't exist when you're just going to make THEIR lives worse while you keep chasing shit that hasn't happened yet.

Fucker.

So by your logic, sex with children is totally cool if the child consents?

I won't address the bizarre personal attacks against me except to put you on ignore. You're not worth my time.

[Axxon]

I'm sure Polanski hasn't stopped raping children. He'd be a rare cases if it hasn't happened again and again since then, says the recidivism rates for this particular crime.
You seem quite versed in the mind of a child rapist. Want to share something?

[Axxon]

So by your logic, sex with children is totally cool if the child consents?

I won't address the bizarre personal attacks against me except to put you on ignore. You're not worth my time.

Put me on ignore asshole. That's where you're going. I was fucking molested you piece of shit. I hate Polanski and what he did but I absolutely hate hurting Samantha worse. God can get his vengeance on Polanski. We're getting ours on Samantha.

You are a sick bastard reading what I wrote and accusing me of being for child molestation. You have deep deep issues.n

[CamEdwards]

Put me on ignore asshole. That's where you're going. I was fucking molested you piece of shit. I hate Polanski and what he did but I absolutely hate hurting Samantha worse. God can get his vengeance on Polanski. We're getting ours on Samantha.

You are a sick bastard reading what I wrote and accusing me of being for child molestation. You have deep deep issues.n

I think you were right when you said you couldn't discuss this logically. I'm sorry for what you went through, but it's entirely possible to be the victim of a molestation and hold a completely different viewpoint than your own.

[judicial clerk]

Axxon is also missing an important point. It is the not the attempt to extradite Polanski that is causing her grief. It is the reporters who bother her about it for a story every time that are causing her grief. Whoopie Goldberg talking about it on the View is the real problem. Pursuing a fugitive arrest warrants does not inherently involve rehashing things with the crime victim.

And while we should always be cognizant of a victims wishes, in criminal court it is not a case of her against him for doing stuff to her, it is the state of california against him for breaking the states laws.

[MrBug708]

I think you were right when you said you couldn't discuss this logically. I'm sorry for what you went through, but it's entirely possible to be the victim of a molestation and hold a completely different viewpoint than your own.

Yes

[Grammaticus]

Yeah, I don't understand the defense of him at all. He should have been brought back any one of those 32 years. I'm sure he was surprised, but he can't really cry foul. He's been deliberately avoiding "capture" for 32 years, it's not like he's some naive innocent here.

It's odd that they suddenly made this move to bring him in, but what does he have to complain about? Thirty two years of freedom? Not ever having been raped? It's nice that she forgives him, but there's a reason we don't let victims decide the punishment in the criminal justice system.

It sounds like Polanski filed a request to have the case dismissed earlier this year or late last year, based on some potential prosecutorial misconduct. Apparently something came out in a recent documentary style movie. The judge indicated he would not review the request unless Polanski appeared. I'm guessing the arrogance and contempt for the law in this move by Polanski inspired those in position to renew efforts to bring him in.

I guess there is no statute of limitations because he already pled guilty and fleeing is also a crime in and of itself. I have no idea what someone would normally get for fleeing as he did.

[molson]

It sounds like Polanski filed a request to have the case dismissed earlier this year or late last year, based on some potential prosecutorial misconduct. Apparently something came out in a recent documentary style movie. The judge indicated he would not review the request unless Polanski appeared. I'm guessing the arrogance and contempt for the law in this move by Polanski inspired those in position to renew efforts to bring him in.

I guess there is no statute of limitations because he already pled guilty and fleeing is also a crime in and of itself. I have no idea what someone would normally get for fleeing as he did.

He's also been really careful about it, avoiding countries that would arrest him.

I'm not sure that there was any new sudden push to bring him in. Surely, if he had set foot in the U.S. or U.K. at any point during the last few decades, he would have been taken in. Also, if the U.S. had advance notice of his travel plans, as they did here, they may very well have been able to negotiate his arrest on a previous trip.

Switzerland is more of a grey area, and he might have gotten a little too comfortable and complacent in going there with advance notice.

[lungs]

It's amazing how we have national outrage over this and not over the fact that a) Texas just put a clearly innocent man to death and b) the governor of Texas just did his best to stop an investigation that would once and for all confirm the innocence of the deceased.

Texas Governor Defends Shakeup of Commission - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/us/02texas.html)

Maybe we should execute prosecutors that are found to have sent innocent people to death. I say that tongue in cheek but half serious. Different thread I guess.

[molson]

On the victim thing, there's definitely a balance between the desires of the victim, and the need for prosecution.

In cases of child abuse, and domestic battery, an unwilling victim/family is the norm. And it's incredibly damaging for any victim to re-live the situation to any degree. Abusers/Batterers know this. They know the odds are stacked against prosecution. But that's changing. Decades ago, if a battered spouse or child abuse victim/family didn't want to "press charges", prosecution would end. The abuse/battery could continue, with the same victims, or different victims.

Victims I've worked with have often expressed a sense of relief when I tell them, which I might on a case by case basis, that they have zero say in the prosecution. That takes that burden from them. That takes that fear of their abuser/attacker from them. I always pointed out - "it's us v. him, not you v. him". Many take comfort in that. They're not being asked to fight their accuser in court.

Of course in this case, this victim doesn't even have to go anywhere near a court if she don't want too. Polanski just needs to be sentenced to the generous plea deal he get (Though I believe the prosecution would also have the option to throw that deal out and charge Polanski with the original rape charges he faced - since Polanski didn't live up to his end of the plea agreement.)

[DaddyTorgo]

the problem is the media, and the problem is us, making this all a story again. that's what is dragging shit up for this poor women. it should be a non-story

[molson]

Maybe we should execute prosecutors that are found to have sent innocent people to death. I say that tongue in cheek but half serious. Different thread I guess.

I think it should definitely be a crime if a prosecutor willfully withholds obviously exculpatory evidence, (as in, evidence that actually shows innocence).

That's insanely rare though.

[RainMaker]

That is what I just said numbnuts. The victim doesn't fucking matter. She's disposable garbage. She should have already been given a mercy killing because we damned sure can't deny some good old voyeuristic recreational outrage. Thank you for reinforcing my point. No go pat yourself on the back for being a heartless, soulless knob because if assisting victims is meaninless then it makes no fucking sense to worry about victims that don't exist when you're just going to make THEIR lives worse while you keep chasing shit that hasn't happened yet.

Fucker.

I can understand your compassion for the victim. But as a society our goal should be protect all citizens, and not just the victim of a crime. It is truly horrible to be a victim and I feel for her. But I'd also feel for the next 13- year old he'd choose to rape.

I don't think our system of justice should be based strictly on the victim's choice. It should be decided by society as a whole. We have decided that those who rape children serve X amount of time in jail. A victim's judgement will never be as clear as societys.

[RainMaker]

I think it should definitely be a crime if a prosecutor willfully withholds obviously exculpatory evidence, (as in, evidence that actually shows innocence).

That's insanely rare though.
It happens a lot more than we'd like to admit. A local case here got a lot of media attention over the decades. A girl was killed in a nice community and there was a lot of pressure to solve the case. The DA who had political aspirations (which he followed through on) put two innocent men in jail for it. Lot of evidence tampering and bogus testimony.

I believe it is a crime but really tough to prove. I'm also a believer that judges should be held accountable for their decisions.

Jeanine Nicarico murder case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanine_Nicarico_murder_case)

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Fuck Polanski.

[Kodos]

No, it's an idiot college QB parody.

Ohhhh, that's right. I knew it was familiar from somewhere.

[albionmoonlight]

Axxon--

Should we as a society stop making this front page news and just let the judicial process play out? I think so. I wish that Polanski would get brought to justice and no one would even hear about it. In part because I find Hollywood annoying and in part b/c the victim would prefer us not to talk about it.

But I cannot agree that victims should be allowed to drive prosecutions. It almost never works when that happens. The system isn't perfect, but a victim driven system would be much worse.

That isn't to say that the victim should be treated like garbage. Courts should do what they can (and they are getting better about this) to protect the privacy of victims and to keep things out of the media when possible.

However, court proceedings are public proceedings (it would be a much much much worse world if they weren't), and when Access Hollywood wants to report about anal sex with 13 year old girls in order to boost ratings through titilation in the guise of "journalism," there is only so much we can do to stop them.

Your anger should not, IMHO, be directed at the judicial system, which is doing what it can to sentence a man for a crime that he admitted commiting. It should be directed (as it seems, in large part, to be) at the media and the Hollywood stars who can't shut up about this, and at those of us who can't stop eating it up.

The result of this, in the end, cannot be to drop the prosecution based on the need to put it all to bed. That lets the media and the hecklers win. We cannot give them a veto over the process.

On a related note, if Mr. P has legal objections to raise about his plea based on judicial and/or prosecutorial misconduct, then he is free to raise them. There are mechanisms through which pleas can be dissolved. But he needs to come here and attempt that. Standing in Europe and crying foul while preventing the process from adjudicating that foul is simply a mockery of the system.

[Samdari]

Courts should do what they can (and they are getting better about this) to protect the privacy of victims and to keep things out of the media when possible.

Wow. Don't trials need to be public for us to have any sense of freedom?

[albionmoonlight]

Wow. Don't trials need to be public for us to have any sense of freedom?

Oh, for sure. It is a real balancing act. The process is evolving, certainly. But lets say that an individual needs to submit a financial report to prove that he does not have the money to come in and testify and he needs the court to pay for it. In that case, that information should be kept private. Things like that are what I am talking about.

You also see the problem with the whole "don't snitch" thing. The government has an interest in people testifying against other people. But people have gotten better about figuring out who has given testimony against other people and then marking them as a snitch. So courts are experimenting with ways to limit the access to information about cooperation while also preserving the integrity of the open judicial process.

It really isn't easy, and sometimes I think that, in that instance, the courts have gone too far in keeping information sealed that should be made public. But I say that knowing that the courts really are trying to balance several very important goals and it won't always be perfect.

[Samdari]

Oh, for sure. It is a real balancing act. The process is evolving, certainly. But lets say that an individual needs to submit a financial report to prove that he does not have the money to come in and testify and he needs the court to pay for it. In that case, that information should be kept private. Things like that are what I am talking about.

You also see the problem with the whole "don't snitch" thing. The government has an interest in people testifying against other people. But people have gotten better about figuring out who has given testimony against other people and then marking them as a snitch. So courts are experimenting with ways to limit the access to information about cooperation while also preserving the integrity of the open judicial process.

It really isn't easy, and sometimes I think that, in that instance, the courts have gone too far in keeping information sealed that should be made public. But I say that knowing that the courts really are trying to balance several very important goals and it won't always be perfect.


Sorry, guess I read a little too much into your one statement.

[albionmoonlight]

Sorry, guess I read a little too much into your one statement.

Don't apologize. More Americans need your instincts.

[SportsDino]

I think letting him get away with it just encourages similar behavior from other villains. I agree the media needs to be junkpunched for their purely rude and insipid behavior (I think you should be able to bring charges against media harassment), but you can't let villains do terrible things and laugh them off.

[molson]

Lock up your kids Europe, he's out!

At least he did some time. And he'll never be a danger to children in the U.S. again.

[MikeVic]

Selena Gomez has to watch out though.