We Are All Roman Polanski's Victims, And We All Deserve Justice

autocratic nations like China, Burma, Iran, Saudi etc than liberal democracies: CP, length and severity of prison terms and (as in casu) deficient statute of limitations.

Even the victim herself wants the case to be forgotten - full stop!

The US should look to Europe. Not to China and the Muslim world!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Being entrapped does not forgive him for the crime, but there are many criminals in the case including the pimping mother,trampy daughter, and crooked judge.
Polanski was tricked into pleading guilty to a lesser charge. The deal was for the judge and his partners to get half a million for no jail time. But once Polanski pleaded guilty the price went up. He was threatened with 50 years if he did not come up with the money. Polanski would not give up all his assets and fled the country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There are other criminals in this filthy case, they are the money hungry mother and her well trained daughter. But being entrapped does not forgive him for a terrible crime. The pervert was tricked into pleading guilty to a lesser charge. The deal was for the judge to get half a million for no jail time. But once Polanski pleaded guilty the price went up. He was threatened with 50 years if he did not come up with the extra money. Polanski would not give up all his assets and fled the country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

because it was indeed rape but a long time ago in the swinging 70s when age of consent was lower in many states, he pled guilty in plea bargain expecting time served and judge wanted to make political hay and reneged, and the victim got a civil settlement. But what really gets me is the Bush Cheney hierarchy who lied our way into a war which killed tens of thousands and condoned torture and wiretapping and lied about it. I would like to see them arrested and sent to Spain or the hague becuse they had tens of thousands of victims rather than 1.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We all get huffy and mad over Polanski and ignore the real problems of a criminal justice system steeped in the seemingly medieval philosophy of punishment and revenge rather than rehabilitation, a society that openly encourages the conditions that lead to sexual abuse while passing the blame onto red herrings like pornography, video games, and Hollywood, and a culture so sexually repressed that teenagers are regularly prosecuted for practicing their human right to have sex. Maybe instead of having to look askance at everything through the prism of celebrity idolatry we should deal with these things head-on, and focus on the ways ordinary people suffer every day. Oh, but that would be un-American I guess. I suppose I'll just wait for whoever the next Disney pop-star is to get caught having sex with another girl so we can talk, in order, about how "bad things are getting" with people fulfilling biological imperatives, and then, after days of moralizing, maybe we can talk about how difficult it is for any young person, nonetheless a gay one, to find emotional connections (and I don't mean sexual) in a society where all human relationships have been cut down to mere superficiality. Again, I'll have to wait for some celebrity to do something first, because god forbid a regular person have an opinion that isn't "on the wire." As for Roman Polanski: fuck it, I don't care. Imprison him or, as the actual victim would have it, let him go. It doesn't matter to me anymore. But please, stop pretending you all care about the girl. Most of you don't; you just see it as an excuse to get pointlessly angry and feel personally victimized. This is quickly becoming the new national pastime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No, you and I are surely not harmed by this.

It has been 30 years and California has many other crimes to worry about that are happening now to spend their limited funds on this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I find it grossly demeaning to Polanski's actual victim and by extension EVERY rape victim, young or old, male or female for you to even DARE to claim to also be a victim of every rape that ever occurs as well... because what is to differentiate Polanski from any other rapist.

You are simply using rape victims and in this case one very specific rape victim who has had to suffer not only through rape, but the constant and unwanted press over something that happened 30 years ago.. to advance your own agenda regardless of their feelings.

After 30 years, she just wants to finally move on and not be reminded of it every few years.... but activists just see her as fresh meat to exploit for their own gain. Yes, their aims and even your aims are noble and laudable... but that doesn't excuse exploiting others to achieve them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

but in all this furor, something seems to have been overlooked.

The child he raped is now a woman. She came to a settlement with him and has asked this to stop. She wants him released and the whole thing settled.

Does she have no say in this? The refusal of ANYONE to acknowledge this woman is utterly inexcusable.

I make no excuses for Mr. Polanski. As a woman and as a human being I think that what he did is absolutely reprehensible.

But SOMEONE has to acknowledge the victim; SOMEONE needs to listen to her. Why is no one doing that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

i disagree wholeheartedly. this rant is just the anti-sex league at work.

in the first place, if you remember the event at the time as i do, the girl at that time said flatly that she adored roman polanski, did her best to land him and that it was only her family's desire to cash in on it that was driving the case, not her own feelings, which at that time, as now, she complains bitterly had nothing to do with her own interests.

also, at the time, polanski, speaking what apparently, according the girl herself, was the truth, told the judge that"she may have been only 13 but she was a 13 year old woman and she seduced me.

as geoffrey chaucer, the first great writer in english history, wrote in his fabulous 'canterbury tales,' "if there be hair down there, to romance is fair." and in 1900, inengland, the average age at which a girl was married was just under 14, for men, 17. the famous world-historians and chroniclers of the arts and philosophy histories, will and ariel durant, met when will was 28 and teaching history in massachusetts, and ariel was a 14 year old student. they were run out of town, married, spent the next 70 years happily and extremely productively married around their love of history. today, some jerks would ship him to prison as a 'sex offender' and put her in the care of some shrink who will load her up on those world's worst drugs.

ludwig wittgenstein was 60 when he also fell in love with an 18 year old student and they had 15 fine years together. the young man devoted his life to the great philosopher's work. likewise, georgia o'keefe had a grand love affair with a man in his mid-20s when she was in her late 70s and early 80s. shame on them? no shame on prude clitoral mutilators and castrating PTA bible-belters.

let's consider oscar wilde, the great playwright and quotemaster. he fathered two sons and doted on his wife and all of these loved him. one of his sons after years of enduring the 'family disgrace' wrote a loving book about his father. but the victorian age, so rife with bawdiness due precisely to the suppression of sex, saw fit to imprison wilde and brutalize him ferociously therein. (his comment, "if this is how queen victoria treats her prisoners; she doesn't deserve to have any.") his young lover, a teenaged lad, stood by him completely and was there to meet him when his prison term was up. others than his wife and sons in the family forbade them to associate with oscar. the lad lived the hard life with oscar til his death.

similarly michael jackson. while americans mostly don't give a damn about the million children we've butchered iniraq alone since 1990... mention jackson at a hick bar, PTA or church meeting and they're ready to lynch this 'child molester.' once again, even under intense family and official pressure to sell michael out; none ever did. my position is that when i was 13, i was desperate for someone, anyone, as long as they were gentle, to give me a blowjob. it could've been a goat of either sex and i wouldn't've cared a whit. the king of pop giving me a suck? that's a crime? are you kidding?

i live in new york state where if you are 19 and have sex with a 17 year old girl or boy, you can be imprisoned for statutory rape and live the rest of your life with signs posted in your yard that you are a sex maniac! in oklahoma a couple of years ago, some insane judge sentenced an 18 year old boy to 15 years in prison for giving a consenting 15 year old a blowjob. what? imprison that judge fast would be my notion of justice! a 14 year old girl was recently arrested for handing out prints of her in the nude to passersby and was promptly arrested, charged, convicted as a sex offender and sent to some horrible spychiatric torture chamber.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you are "rich and famous", have lots of money and/or political power, you can get away with almost anything. OJ killed his wife and her boyfriend and walked. Bush and Co. ordered torture and get pardoned. Polanski committed rape and escaped for 30+ years.

Whereas if you or me did any of the above, I can tell you just what would happen:

1) Get arrested the day after the crime

2) have the trial the following Wednesday

3) By Friday you are convicted

4) The following Monday you are in the penn serving as a lifer.

The uber-wealthy can hire the very best lawyers that can stretch things out for years. I wouldn't be surprised if--even after finally being arrested---Polanski manages to walk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'consent'... the first time i gave consent to have sex with an 'adult' (he was 15), i was about to turn 12 years old. when mom and the whole small town found out she wanted to charge him with rape. my position? "It was better than watching 'beverly hillbillies' reruns." anyone who thinks i didn't have the right to claim conscious consent is a repulsive fascist hater of youth and sex in my book, creating pedophobia!

brutal rape and truly predatory activities are one thing and they are clear. but all this hysteria is just that. every 10 years since 1970 there's been a study of affection as an element of american family life and every time it has gone down. the last one, in 2000 was the worst. dad's interviewed said that they were now afraid to be seen hugging and kissing their own children in public for fear of accusations!

no wonder teen suicide is up 7x since 1970 (aside from the disastrous psych-drugs which exacerbate this.) what does the typical teen suicide note say? "can't get any love." or "no one will have sex with me like i'm some kind of creep." in the native world prior to the evil white christians arrival, explorers and such as the great margaret mead discovered people so peaceable they ran from mere shouts. they went naked, had sex in public and shamanic events included music/dance/art/chants/drugs and communal sex from which none young or old were excluded. rape, murder and war were rarities rather than the norm.

likewise, there are predatory, sexually harassing bosses, but look at what the lunatic fringe has done with that. the workplace is plainly less friendly now. oh, no, mustn't touch anyone ever again in this love-disabled faux-culture; it is strictly forbidden in the new corporate state.

a friend of mine a few years ago found a 1920s baptist manual for missionaries... it was blunt and to the point... the first rules were to stamp out native nudity, public sex, homosexuality. to instill and install 'christian morality.' then they become broken cultures ready to be slaves to empire... in polynesia, for example, by age 21 a person had engaged sex some 2,000 times already. they likely had what was termed 'an attachment' who was an older person of the same sex, taken on at adolescence as a kind of lover to teach the ways of love. didn't make them 'totally gay' nor 'victims.' now let's compare this with the average 21 year old american who's had 15 sexual incidents in his life. no wonder they go off to wars to kill and die in rage and frustration.

consider that when i was 13 i knew kids who still insisted that sex was a lie because 'that's dirty. my parents would never do that!' now that's what i call child abuse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These 'Hollywood' types give liberals a bad name when they support a fugitive convicted criminal. They feed the wrong wingers like Rush, Hannery and their ilk more ammo against them and in turn all 'liberals', thus ruining the opportunity to push good and progressive issues most Americans want and some of these people support. Mr. Polanski accepted a plea to the charges of rape, the Judge properly rejected it, possibly as he saw 'celebarty justice' being applied, not what would be for a normal person. Mr. Polanski was able to leave despite under bail due to the looser standards of law then. If he had faced the plea deal, he would have served his too short time and thrown out of the USA for life back to France. Now he may face a defacto life sentence for being a fugitive unless he wins a current Federal Circuit case on his original charges.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is what happens when we equate it to statutory rape, which is sex with a partner under the age when the law says that she has the right to consensual sex. The story that came out at the time of this incident is very much tamer than the sensationalized story that's been put out now. The story then was that she was bragging on the phone to her friends when her mother evesdropped on her telephone conversations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is amazing.. forget ethics and moralities... he's one of them.

Letterman gets laughs upon revealing his sexual conquests with his subordinates - another lowlife that should be fired - like any exec would be from a company who ventured into that forbidden territory!

The entire corrupt self absorbed lot of Hollywood assholes are pathetic - and these are the people we followed as they stumped for our favorite political candidate!

A nation of idiots!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am delighted to see so many sex positive responses here. Like tazdelaney above, I had sex from an early age and enjoyed every minute of it. I am only sorry that I didn't have sex more frequently when I was very young.

What my friends and I learned very quickly as children was that there was a general adult hysteria concerning all sexuality outside of marriage, and it was obvious to us that this was absurd. Even before my teens, I knew that what the "proper" adult world and law believed was farcical.

I agree totally with "tazdelaney" above: "anyone who thinks i didn't have the right to claim conscious consent is a repulsive fascist hater of youth and sex in my book, creating pedophobia!"

I wish I had said that first!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is about a drugged 8th grader. What in the world are you people defending?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

now the state is obligated to try to bring him back to face whatever passes for justice these days.

#@!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

long ago there were States so horrible they had to tell the peasants :you cannot escape to the Power of Hitler and Stalin.
No matter where you might be....

Thank you God nowadays the whole world knows;
Rich or Poor, in the land of the free and brave there is still justice....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

David Letterman had sex with co-workers. SHOCKING! People in the media are asking what this will do to his career.

Given everything that comes out of the arena of entertainment, sports and politics............this newsman comes up with this brilliant extortion plan.

David Letterman had sex with the fish in the green room. There......that could make for a good extortion plan.

David Letterman had sex with the band. Not bad..........what else do you have?

Uhh....let's see.......he had sex with Leno. "NOW you're talking!!" "You sir, have the making of a great.......not good......but great, extortionist."


But no......he went with the Letterman had sex with co-workers.

So when the media talks about what this will do to his career............I think it's the newsman that should be asked that question.

I love the fact that Letterman basically told this guy to go "f*** yourself!"



Polanski, on the other hand, had "consensual sex" with a sleeping thirteen year old. What happened to his career?

I love the hypocrites of Hollywood........if it were Father Polanski they'd want him strung up by his goblets. But no....it's Roman the great director......and it wasn't "rape rape"....just........rape...I guess??


Ok...I get it. Thirteen year olds have sex and many thirteen year old girls are mature enough, I guess, to actually think for themselves. If that's what Whoopi and Woody want us to believe.....ok.....let's give them that.

But whether thirteen or thirty.....how consensual could it be when one partner had to be drugged???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The fact is that it's no more acceptable for the man to be made an example of because he's famous than it is to excuse him because he's famous.

If his original plea deal was in line with the usual one for this type of crime in LA County in the late 70s, some kind of agreement should be reached. Normally, pleas that involve probation instead of jail time for first offenders exist to give people a chance to rehabilitate themselves. As Polanski's victim has pointed out, no one else has come forward in the last 30 years to accuse him again.

And I can't help wondering how many 13-year-old victims are currently suffering at the hands of rapists who are still at large in LA County, how many of those men will be caught, prosecuted and do hard time.

Personaaly, I rather see a Polanski anti-rape PSA than see the man go to prison.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

by novelist Martin Amis where tries to justify his actions:

"If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But...fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!"

It obviously reveals his contempt for the idea that he ever did anything wrong. What ever happened to the idea of Justice?: You do the crime, you do the time. Our system of justice is so bogged down with inequalities; a low income “nobody” will often serve more time in prison for a simple drug offense, than a rich white collar criminal who has ruined the lives of thousands. Or a famous or elitist celebrity. I have a real problem with just letting this go. It's clear that the people in Hollywood who want to forgive him do so not because he's “suffered” enough (having to live hiding and in exile for 30 years, having his wife murdered etc), or for any other morally justifiable reasons.

They want to exempt him from justice because he's one of their talented artists and therefore deserving of special treatment because of his creative gifts. Too many rich and famous people are exempted from real laws already. Justice is supposed be equal for everyone. Let Polanski be brought to justice and serve his time just like the rest of us “little people”.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a 76 year old man who committed statutory rape with a consensual 13 year old.......sexually active 13 year old, over thirty years ago. this hysteria is typical of puritan america......but also the product of a desire for punishment while trumpeting moral indigination.

his original probation report recommended he be given probation.........he fled when brain dead rittenband recinded his plea deal. thriteen is by the way the age of consent in a number of countries including japan. Anyway, its a waste of money in a cash strapped california economy. where is the outcry about the priests who have gone , simply, to another parish.......where is the outcry about kissinger still walking around? Or about sexual abuse of women in the military??

hypocrites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

if he was being subjected to a different measure of justice than a non-famous person, this must be addressed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only thing about this case that anyone other than Roman Polanski and Samantha Geimer can be clear on, I think, is that Polanski and Geimer (then Gailey) had sexual intercourse, mutually consensual or not, one day thirty-odd years ago.

If what Geimer said in her original testimony--and what she maintains happened to this day--is accurate and true, while not overtly violent this was not a youth and an adult engaging in consensual (though illegal and according to the sexual morals of many Americans today forbidden) sex--it was rape. That's if.

Polanski has maintained that it was consenting, and pleaded guilty to "unlawful sex with a minor." This plea was agreed to by all parties in the case: the perpetrator, the victim, and the DA. The judge presiding may or may not have shown signs of flightiness in handling sentencing, and at any rate Polanski, fearing prolonged jail-time, fled.

The case is complicated by alcohol and drugs, and Geimer's prior sexual experience: According to her testimony she had had sex twice prior to this incident (with who is unspecified), she had used alcohol and been drunk prior to this, and once taken a portion of a quaalude which she found when she was ten or eleven. The author of this article innacurately states that Geimer explicitly and repeatedly protested being "fed" alcohol and a quaalude, but her sworn testimony flatly contradicts this; at Jack Nicholson's house that day thirty odd years ago, she began drinking champaigne voluntarily when it was offered to her by Polanski, and continued drinking it casually or unthinkingly for some time; after a time posing for pictures and drinking champaigne, she took a portion of a quaalude, which she was able from her own prior knowledge at the time to recognize as a quaalude, when it was offered to her by Polanski, though in her testimony she stated "I must have been pretty drunk or else I wouldn't have." In my view at least, all this says nothing about Geimer's character (that she was some sort of teenage wanton or something), nor does it cast much doubt upon the accuracy and truthfulness of her testimony,if one regards it as plausible, though it does suggest that she was aware of the effects of alcohol and possibly quaaludes. (There may be a wrinkle here in her testimony though--with her ability to recall clearly, while she was probably "pretty drunk," the inscription on the quaalude tablet, which she describes as having been in three pieces when presented to her by Polanski--but I'll leave that aside because I haven't a clue what these things looked like.) At any rate giving champaigne and a quaalude to a minor was illegal in California--and ethically dubious in any event, even regardless of age. It was only after she had been partly disabled or weakened by the champaigne and the quaalude, according to Geimer, that she began overtly resisting Polanski, who persisted in his sexual advances. The assertion that Geimer was forced to drink booze and pop a pill isn't trivial when one considers the vehement declaration of clarity with which Ms. Friedman at the outset of this article frames her opinion.

Anyhow, the sole charge Polanski pled guilty to was what is commonly called "statutory rape" which is not defined by violence or the use of force but rather by the age of consent. If one suggests that sexual morality is relative, and cites in addition that age-of-consent laws are not (and never have been) universal or even consistent within the U.S., then at this juncture some people invariably go into high dudgeon mode about the impossibility, except for people who are mentally and/or emotionally "undeveloped" or "damaged," of consensual sex between an adolescent and an older person. I believe this view to be pure bunk, and there is plenty of evidence that refutes it.

(continued)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I totally agree with you, and like Cokie Roberts I think he should just be arrested and shot.To hell with his movies, to hell with his talent, to hell with his wealth and fame.

By the same token, however, I think that all those banksters who raped the citizens of this and many other countries should also be arrested and shot, but the likelihood of that happening is nil, given that our governments are fully bought and paid for by the banksters, and I would expect the same result here--he'll get off on some technicality and be set free before he's ever extradited. The rich always take care of their own using the rationale of beyond good and evil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a pathetic bunch of losers. He broke the fucking law and now he is going to pay for it. Get over it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can't agree with those who say that prosecuting a man who used drugs and physical force to have sex with a thirteen year old is somehow puritanical - exactly what kind of society do you think we would have if this were considered legal behavior? But more broadly, there seems to be a lack of understanding on the part of many posters (and also in a way by the article's author) of the history of common law in the United States and Europe. It is a longstanding common law principle that it is not the victim's rights that are being protected by prosecution of violent crimes, but those of the state and the general population. This at first glance seems unjust, but it is historically a way of clarifying responsibility for enforcement and preventing vigilante justice. If you are not comfortable with this principle, okay, but then you have a problem with our entire legal system, not just this case.

As far as the ethical side is concerned, it sure sounds like a lot of people want to have sex with children and are looking for a way to justify it. Would these posters feel comfortable with an adult having sex with their own child? Just askin'...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... by not initiating/participating in this event to begin with. Whether the victim had sex before Polanski is irrelevant--a person's prior (and consensual) private history should be sealed. He himself said in an interview that most men fantasized about having sex with young girls. Be that as it might, a person in their forties should be old enough to restrain behaviour that they know could have consecuences. He didn't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It doesn't take a strong person to come out and say, "RAPE = BAD."

It does, however, take a strong person to say that "a 30-year-old rape under dubious circumstances perpetrated with full knowledge of the minor's mother along with the crooked prosecution of the rapist might make this case not worth pursuing."

Of course, I wouldn't say that in front of my girlfriend mind you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If creative talent justifies a Get Out of Jail Free card, what level of misdeed should other directors' talent let them get away with? Directors' Get Out of Jail Free Card survey (satire)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Teenage Rape Survivor has some words of her own for Polanski. I signed this petition. I hope you do too.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nomeansnomeansnomenasno

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The girl who was raped by Polanski has had this to say:

". . . I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us."

And this:

"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."

And this:

"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 . . . It was 30 years ago now."

If she doesn't think Polanski should be arrested 30 years later, what right does the author of this article have to support belated vengeance?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please read this and tell me if NO sounded like yes to you. And bear in mind she was an 8th grader who had been given a qualude and booze.

This would have been rape if she were 25 years old.



And he said, 'Just come down here for a second.' So I finally went down. And then he went — there was a lot of Whirlpool bath jets. He goes, 'Doesn't it feel better down here?' And he was like holding me up because it is almost over my head. And I went, 'Yeah, but I better get out.' So I got out.

___

The victim testified that after she left the whirlpool bath, Polanski told her to go into a nearby bedroom and lie down.

A: I was going, 'No, I think I better go home,' because I was afraid. So I just went and I sat down on the couch.

Q: What were you afraid of?

A: Him.

(a few minutes later)

A: He sat down beside me and asked me if I was OK.

Q: What did you say, if anything?

A: I said, 'No.'

Q: What did he say?

A: He goes, 'Well, you'll be better.' And I go, 'No, I won't. I have to go home.'

Q: What happened then?

A: He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, 'No,' you know, 'Keep away.'

___

After Polanski kissed her, the victim alleged, he began to engage in oral sex.

A: ... I was ready to cry. I was kind of — I was going, 'No. Come on. Stop it.' But I was afraid.

Q: And what did he say, if anything?

A: He wasn't saying anything that I can remember. He was — sometimes he was saying stuff, but I was just blocking him out, you know.

___

The victim testified that Polanski began having sex with her, but sodomized her when he learned she wasn't using birth control.

A: He asked, he goes, 'Are you on the pill?' And I went, 'No.' And he goes, 'When did you last have your period?' And I said, I don't know. A week or two. I'm not sure.'

Q: And what did he say?

A: He goes, 'Come on. You have to remember.' And I told him I didn't.

Q: Did he say anything after that?

A: Yes. He goes, 'Would you want me to go through your back? And I went, 'No.'

___

The victim testified that after the sex, she got dressed and waited in the car for Polanski to drive her home. Before driving her home, he asked her to keep the incident a secret.

A: He said to me, he goes, 'Oh, don't tell your mother about this.' ...

Q: What did you say?

A: I wasn't saying anything. He says, 'Don't tell your mother about this and don't tell your boyfriend either.' ... He said something like, 'This is our secret.' And I went, 'Yeah.' And then later he said, 'You know, when I first met you I promised myself I wouldn't do anything like this to you.'

___

Source: Transcript of the grand jury testimony in The People of the State of California v. Roman Raymond Polanski. March 24, 1977.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am tired of couching every expression of defense of logic by saying "of course, rape of a child is a terrible thing," as a guarantee that I am not endorsing statutory rape, and yet, rape not withstanding, suggesting that what is going on with Polanski is an expression of justice is lunatic!

People who clamor for him to receive "justice like the rest of us" live in a delirious universe where they believe that a 2 tier system prevails: One for the "privileged" and one for the rest of us mortals...That's absurd.
Equal Justice is not an option - anywhere - under ANY circumstance - and has never been...Judges have good days, bad days, people can afford good representation or not, jails are overcrowded, forcing the early release of offenders everywhere, plea deals, dropped charges for political agendas, lawyers can be incompetent or unprepared, trends affect jury opinion, relevant testimonies are denied by authorities, celebrities and odd cases are hounded by media frenzy, insanity pleas are entered, Twinky Defenses, people being attacked or even raped while in custody (hey, why don't you write a post on male-rape in jail? - or perhaps the issue of masculine humiliation does not compel you...)

YOU and I cannot even get identical justice on the same day.

Justice is a coin-toss, at best, everywhere.
There is no reason to write articles on Polanski and forget to call for the jailing of George W. Bush, or Henry Kissinger, yet, there we are -
Did you protest Ronald Reagan's "no me recuerdo" defense during the Iran-Contra lies? -- boy...those lies caused some pain and suffering...
How about Robert McNamara's- was your concern for justice expressed when he was allowed to die out of jail a few months back?

Are you at all interested in justice for all of us?
focusing on a sex case because our own tawdry obsessions are far easier a target than the awesome truth that justice has nothing to do with our lives, one way or another -- This post by a well-meaning wary-eyed woman is another voice in a mob-rage calling for yet another public lynching of a symbol among us - a Scarlet-Letter - in predictable puritanical terms.

There are about a thousand tiers in our justice system on any given day. Most pundits who opine on Polanski did not know his case 2 weeks ago, and are merely voicing ideas on the issue of rape and their frustration with the topic, which is fine, but has nothing to do with either Samantha Geimer, the victim, Roman Polanski the perpetrator, or the judges and prosecutors who dealt with his case 30 years ago -- Morally superior commentators are merely commenting on their 2009 self-congratulatory attitudes: that they are enlightened to child-protection issues -- Roman Polanski is about to become a human pinata dragged-out in public and flogged as a focus of all our anxiety directed at sex - underage and otherwise - pain, suffering, the rich, the lucky, the powerful, and the cats that got away like OJ and Robert Blake.

Roman Polanski is about to become a public example of American shame and angst dragged-out in the media and flung by political punditry...
You call that "justice like for the rest of us"?

Justice is one thing Roman Polanski will NEVER get in America.
You are Pollyanna to his Polanski --
( but we'll look-out for you in the lynch-mob )

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have just read this story and I recently stayed at a Blackpool hotel the Norbreck Castle Hotel and enjoyed my hotel stay in Blackpool. Norbreck Castle is part of Britannia Hotels which has many popular hotel accommodation such as the Britannia Hotel Manchester.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]