Years ago, The Smoking Gun posted the girl [Samantha Geimer, nee Gailey]'s grand jury testimony.
You know what’s funny? I think I would be saying, “I wouldn’t bring my kid around Polanski, but he served his debt to his society, let’s move on” if he had indeed served his debt to society. It seems to me that he has the connections to have weaseled out of it somewhat - good accommodations, great lawyers, etc. - but at no point did he man up and say, “I need to face the music for what I did.”
I am not a frothing-at-the-mouth CHILD RAPISTS MUST DIE zealot. I have a lot of sympathy for victims of abuse that become abusers themselves. I find Chris Hansen’s schtick exploitative and appalling. I would be willing to believe that Polanski was somewhat reformed if he had indeed served his sentence. Since this did not happen, he needs to be held to account.
Look, as a Black man, I know our legal system is imperfect and I have seen so many people screwed over with regard to their liberty and their lives because they didn’t have access to great lawyers, or jets to whisk them out of the country. The message sent by inaction WRT this case is appalling.
I have more respect for OJ Simpson than Roman Polanski. Maybe the former was broke and didn’t have the connections necessary to weasel out of his trial (though he did try!), but he went through the legal system and (ultimately) paid the price.
I actually like Woody Allen’s work, and I admit I don’t know what went down with Mia Farrow’s daughter and him. He might be a reprehensible paedophile, or just really badly misunderstood - I don’t know. But you would think that he would have some measure of self-awareness and give RP a call letting him know why he wouldn’t put his name to that document.
To be fair, most rich celebs committing crimes here in the U.S. aren’t citizens of other countries. O.J. might very well have fled if he’d had that option.
I’ll just say they seem like a good pair.
The Smoking Gun link doesn’t give all of her testimony, but there’s a lot of it. Even after Polanski drugged her, she did her best to get away before he had sex with her over and over.
I don’t think jail time is appropriate for this man at all.
Look at it like this, it’s too easy to just sit in jail, and he’ll be in isolation anyway and waste some time.
This is a man who has shown this crime was a one time thing. It would be much more contstructive to put him to work DOING something to help others.
He should be made to teach film to low income and other disadvantaged people, that would never in a million years get the opportunity to work with such a knowledgeable person.
Make him pay his debt by actually doing something to help disadvantaged people, instead of rotting in a jail cell and gettig the thing over with. I mean he’ll be put in isolation, he’ll bribe the guards, get most comforts in, and though it will be a step down it will hardly be a horrible experience like it is for others.
Put him on work release and force him to use his creativity, knowledge and income to help others. THAT will teach him a lesson and serve society as well.
Putting him in jail is a pointless act that won’t deter anyone and the victim doesn’t even care about the revenge factor, so why bother.
I’d like to go back to the original situation. He was originally arrested for rape, suspicion of sodomy, child molestation, and furnishing drugs to a minor. The grand jury charged Polanski with “giving a drug to a minor, committing a lewd act upon a person less than 14, rape of a minor, rape by use of a drug, oral copulation and sodomy.” That is six felonies. The plea agreement was to drop the charges down to one count of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor”.
I would be interested in a lawyer parsing that for me (us), because as I see it, they’ve dropped any charges of force or coercion and effectively were letting him plead to a case of “she was underage”. I want to know more about the implications of that from a potential punishment/repercussions standpoint, especially at the time of the crime, 1977. The plea agreement was presented largely on behalf of the victim, to prevent a long and public trial and the publicity associated with that. Well, tough noogies, turns out the publicity came along anyway.
Seems to me the original proposed plea bargain was exceedingly lenient to the degree of being a travesty of justice. And Polanski’s response was to not show any remorse whatsoever, to run off to France and party with young women, while still having the legal proceedings open against him! And he wonders why the courts frowned upon this.
If he had shown any contrition, any sense of decency and remorse, I might have more sympathy for him. But he has not done so - ever. (Paying a fee to end a civil suit does not count in my opinion.) And yet he expects us to have sympathy for him because he was forced to not be able to work in Hollywood?! Boo hoo.
mhendo said:
Right, but it would in the alternate situation that was mentioned. But like I said, the main reason was national sovereignty.
Sampiro said:
So what alternative do you propose, something that adequately addresses the nature of his crimes (both the ones against Samantha Gailey and the fleeing from jurisdiction) while not costing the taxpayers money? Crimes happen, and rich people hire expensive lawyers they can afford, and the state has to spend money to prosecute them and, if convicted, house them. Are you going to singlehandedly fix the judicial system in America, where rich people have to fund the state at the same level they fund their own defense, or something? Are you going to propose a solution that addresses Polanski’s crimes and his behavior? Or just let him get away with it and “time served”, because the media are malicious whores who will pester Samantha Gaimer for the rest of her life every time Polanski does anything?
Say we let him go, let him off with time served and call it quits. Nevermind the media sensation for the next few weeks, that will die down. Now are we going to let him back in this country to make movies again? Yes? No? What happens then? He comes back to Hollywood, makes another blockbuster movie, and then when it releases the press announces it with a personal rundown of his history, starting with Birkenau in Poland, hitting the highlights of the Manson murders, and then the long saga of his rape, escape, and eventual return to Hollywood. Why? Because that’s what they do. Or say we don’t let him back in to the U.S. Guess what, same thing different country. It will still be brought up anytime he does anything. Someone gives him another lifetime achievement award, it will make the news, and the news will dredge up “the controversy”. This won’t drop, even when he dies it will be big all over, blown all over the place. Samantha Geimer will never be free from the publicity over this. Her only out is to change her name and move to Australia. Or China. And ignore the news. (By the way, if you’re going to change your name, choose something a little less similar.)
Since I’m asking you for a solution, I’ll propose one. Present in writing to him right now while he’s sitting in Switzerland, for the sex crimes he gets the original plea agreement, which essentially was to deport him and not let him back in the country again. Add to that in writing a plea agreement for whatever charges stem from his fleeing jurisdiction, and trade jail time for a fine. One could add up every dollar spent on his legal situation from the original arrest to the current situation, or just throw out a nice round figure of, say, $5 million (or whatever based upon his current net worth and projected earnings). This is separate from the money he paid in the civil case, this is a fine for contempt of court or whatever it is that legally he violated. Dump that money into the California court system. That way, the situation is legally over, but he can never return to the U.S., and we’re not housing and feeding and protecting him, he’s back in France paying his own way, but there’s still some significant punishment for crimes. All the legal rangling goes away, the extradition and fighting it, the issue of judicial wrongdoing in the first case, everything. It stops.
Of course, that won’t stop the media, or Samantha Geimer from being harassed by them. Nothing we do can stop that.
Sampiro said:
Why would I want to do that? I don’t watch Nancy Grace, and you shouldn’t, either. Nobody should. Stop it, right now. No seriously, that’s exactly the kind of crap that I’m talking about up post. There’s no value in that.
The media exposure will never go away. Anything Polanski does for the rest of his life, upon his death, and at any retrospectives of his career after his death, it will always be brought up and sprayed around. The only way for that to happen is for the media to collectively agree to leave Ms. Gaimer alone and to drop the matter.
ZPG Zealot said:
That’s the most preposterous thing said in this thread, and that includes the people defending Polanski in the news articles.
The rape happened in 1977. The civil lawsuit was filed in 1988, by the victim (who was then 25), 11 years afterwards. The undisclosed sum (rumored to be $225,000) was paid to end the civil suit, which he very likely would have lost, given his plea agreement. So the brilliant blackmail scam involved waiting 11 years before getting around to getting the money, and then settling for a few hundred thou instead of several Mil? Even Michael Jackson’s accusers got off better than that. Come on, the victim waited 11 years without any hope of justice, and finally took some action and got some resolution. And it helped her move on emotionally. Of course, if she realized just how much media attention she’d be getting and how long this would go on, maybe she would have held out for more. $225,000 for a lifetime of being drug into the news and made a spectacle - that’s chump change.
By the way, the dumbest thing she ever did was coming forward. When she filed the civil suit, she did so as Jane Doe. It was afterwards she came forward and identified herself. If she wanted anonymity, she should have left it with Jane Doe.
Wow, and I thought that other comment was the dumbest thing said in this thread. You’re really racking them up.
Do you know the first thing about being a victim? Forgiveness isn’t about what the other person deserves. Forgiveness is about the victim trying to come to peace with what has happened, finding a way to move on with their life and not dwell on the bad event or the anger and hatred or get stuck in the past. Some people forgive the killers of their children. Forgiveness is giving yourself permission to heal. As for the $225,000, how much did she originally ask for? Is that a real number, or someone’s speculation? How was that sum arrived at? Did she take it because it gave her some sense of closure, of getting some acknowledgement from him of his wrongdoing? Was there a personal apology involved, also undisclosed? What were the full terms and conditions that you don’t know about? You’re sitting in judgement on her over a situation you don’t know the full circumstances based upon how you think you would react in a situation you are not in. Note that at the time not only was the original case unresolved and in limbo, there was no expectation of it ever being resolved. None. Zip. Note also that she was anonymous at the time. Frankly, being able to get some sense of closure was very likely more important to her than the sum involved or sticking it to him.
He seems to have worked it out that he has no reason to act sheepish and so bends over backwards to be unapologetic as possible. When the Mia-Soon Yi story broke (pushing the Amy Fisher saga off the front page of the NY Post), he put out a statement saying “happily, it’s true”.
I didn’t realize that Polanski owns a house in Switzerland, lives there a part of each year, and has vacationed there frequently every year for the past 30 years. I wonder out of curiosity why now they decide to arrest him when they could have at any time.
This whole Polanski arrest business has really gotten me spun up. Of all the world’s current affairs and concerns, this one sure ticked me off.
This has been an enlightening debate, particularly the posts from Sampiro, who goes to great lengths to present his view that Polanski should not face jail time. Thanks for hashing it out with everyone here, Sampiro.
I agree with Hippy Hollow and I cannot see shades of gray on this. Polanski admits it happened, was convicted of it, and fled justice. It really is that simple. His tragic childhood and everything else cannot excuse his choice of actions.
Forty four year old men are not allowed to have sex with thirteen year old children. Even if the mother wants you to nail her child, a man in the United States is legally and morally bound to say no. There is no debating this fact.
Child molestation and child rape are worthy of a 31 year pursuit and I am very pleased the Swiss have arrested him.
The celebrities and politicians defending this man do not respect our justice system and if he is released, it proves the celebrity double standard is a reality.
I believe the DA’s office has cited some difficulty in tracking Polanski’s movements in a timely manner. Also, some commentators have noted that Polanski’s lawyers, in moving to have the case dismissed in recent years, tried to argue that one reason dismissal was warranted was because the DA had not tried to arrest him abroad. In law as in everything else, don’t tug on Superman’s cape.
This defense of Polanski in the Village Voice is all sorts of delish:
Anytime.
I do want to go on record though, both here and in the Pit Thread, that my reasons for not wanting him tried have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with his stature as an artist. I think he’s a rapist and that if he filmed a movie that cured cancer in all who watched it he’d still be a rapist. I think the people who are saying “He’s a brilliant artist” are fucking evil. My reasons are completely in support of the victim’s wish not to see him extradited.
Also, I’d lay 3:1 odds that he’s going to get a new trial (technically it’d be getting a trial since he didn’t have a first one as he plead guilty). I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he has a new trial and walks from the court room a free man. He can afford great lawyers and he’s had 30 years to prepare, and we know for a fact they’ve been working on the case for the last couple of years.
Why would he get his standing conviction thrown out? On what grounds? he pled guilty. He can’t blame prosecutorial misconduct (and has never alleged it. Any allegatiuons of “misconduct,” such as it is, are lodged at the judge who allegedly changed his mind about a sentencing deal after Polanski played him for a sap by partying with groupies in Europe when he had told the judge he was going to doing urgently needed work).
The fact that a judge was going to withdraw a sweetheart sentencing deal does not affect the conviction phase at all.
Because he’s rich, has the best lawyers, and the case’s age and general oddity and the notoriety of Polanski and the allegations of misconduct [IANAL so I’ve no idea if there was or wasn’t but the case has it’s own documentary]. Also the fact that he’s a dual-citizenship foreign national (France and Poland) who has friends in high places internationally ensures every jot and tittle must be noted to avoid a major international incident. I don’t think his lawyers will have trouble getting him a trial.
Not saying it’s right, but remember OJ, Robert Blake, and others whose guilt was damned near as provable as his manipulating the system 12 different ways and they didn’t have nearly as much going for them. Polanski can claim the original plea was forced and that he was in fear of his life (and if he’s smart he will regardless of whether it’s a lie) and there’s pretty much no way to disprove him- it was 32 years ago- and he doesn’t have to prove it for millions of people across the world to believe it.
I honestly think he’ll get a new trial and he’ll either walk or he’ll get a slap on the wrist. Phil Spector’s the exception and that’s only because they literally had the smoking gun with his fingerprints.
I really have a hard time believing that he’ll take it to those lengths. Her grand jury testimony will probably still stand, and he’ll have to do something he’s never done before–contest the charges and plead Not Guilty. The court case would be a zoo and would probably last longer than any likely prison sentence he would get. The animus towards him and his actions would only grow hotter and more intense, and it’s hardly a slamdunk that he would win in the first place. He may be rich and arrogant, but I don’t think he’s stupid, and I suspect he loves life and his family enough to resolve this as quickly as possible–ideally (from his POV), through connections and backstage strong-arming, but if he has to take his bitter pill and lay at the mercy of the court, that’s going to be taken much better than if he draws it out, fighting tooth & nail.
The charges have already been adjudicated. He can’t contest them without getting the first conviction thrown out, and I disagree with Sampiro that he has a realistic chance of doing that. If anything, his notoriety would work against him this time. His lawyers aren’t going to be able to work their magic on a starstruck jury, they’re going to have to try to convince hard-nosed appellate judges that something was wrong with the first conviction. I don’t think it’s going to happen, especially since the public tide will be very much against Polanski this time.
I think it’s a disgusting farce that it’s taken this long to track him down and arrest him. I am mindful that the victim doesn’t want the press all in her life and wants to move on. Well, there’s nothing that will give her privacy. I don’t give a rat’s ass about Polanski’s children not having their dad around. He’s the fucking criminal, he needs to face up to his crimes. He needs to teach his children respect for the law and respect for women and respect for children and respect for themselves, and responsibility for their actions - even when they’re drugged-up, rich Hollywood movie directors. What better way to teach his children than to take his punishment like he deserves.
ArchiveGuy said:
Well, first his lawyers are fighting extradition and the arrest in Switzerland. They’re going to pull any trick they can think of to get the Swiss to let him go. I bet the French have already sent letters about how he’s a French citizen so they should return him to France. I have no idea if this is going to play out that he gets returned to the U.S., or if the Swiss release him on bail and he runs again, or if they cave in to France, or what. I’m hoping they stand their ground and give him back to the U.S. Let the French fight with us over it.
If he gets returned to U.S. custody, things will be another heap of mess. Obviously he’s going to try to make as much as he can out of the notion that the judge acted improperly. I don’t know the details of what impropriety is actually accused. My understanding as a layperson is that the judge is not compelled to accept any plea agreement. But whatever impropriety there might have been, he’s certainly going to have his lawyers fighting for him.
But I can tell you one thing. There is no way he will get bail. He is a proven flight risk. Either his original plea agreement will be accepted, or he will face new charges for evading prosecution, or someone will push for a new trial. But if they go for the new trial, he will sit in jail the whole time. If he doesn’t, that judge will be excoriated.
I want to go back and say something about my prior remarks to ZPG Zealot. I may have overreacted a bit. It is in the realm of possibility that they were trying a “badger game” - things like that happen. I am at a loss, though, on how they would have been doing so, since the mother was not present and did not even know where the events were occurring. The first one took place on a trail in the hills, and the second started at one location and then moved to Nicholson’s house. Her mother or someone would have had to be following them, and then entered the private gated property. The other alternative was the mother hearing about the topless photos and thinking she could get him to take some more, then somehow get ahold of them to use against him. But I’m not sure what kind of strategy would have worked for that. And frankly, if that were the case, wouldn’t they have pursued the civil suit a lot sooner? Why didn’t the mother play up that angle for Hollywood sympathy to boost her own career? If she were such an opportunist that that was her goal, the rape of her daughter would have been plenty of fodder for just that kind of career boost. Instead, she bailed on Hollywood and took a whole other career to get her family out of the spotlight. I doesn’t seem to play out for me.
But what really irritated me about your remarks was your judgmental attitude about the victim’s actions taken with very little in the way of evidence and much in the way of your impression about how you would have done things differently. And your statements about human nature that fail to grasp the breadth of human behavior. So I was a bit peeved.
Let’s say his conviction was thrown out. Isn’t “fleeing prosecution” a slam dunk against him?
In the dark ages before cell phones, plenty of people working the badger game got caught phoning in their locations. I am curious if the phone logs still exist from then and have ever been studied. As far as not pursuing the civil suit until so much later or not using it as fodder for a career boost, there are some scams that burn bad and if the mother became known for working the badger game, no one in Hollywood was going to hire her. It wouldn’t be a matter of choosing another career. I base my judgement’s on the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator based on many years of being a student of human behavior especially criminals. I’ve worked with con artists and I know pedophiles. Polanski doesn’t read like one. If for no other reason than every pedo I’ve every encountered had dozens if not hundreds of victims and Polanski has been in Europe for 30 years without a second arrest.