Every so often we are faced with a news story that divides opinion and causes heavy debate. In these cases, emotion often rules supreme and otherwise pleasant people become laptop dictators demanding justice and punishment. They seldom know more than the basic public stance, cry righteous indignation without a semblance of objectivity, and the baying mob forms.
Two such cases are currently being heavily debated in the media. The first is the subject of this blog and is the arrest and trial of Roman Polanski. The second which will hopefully form the basis of my next blog is the current fracas surrounding the Reitz 4 at the University of the Free State.
Polanski was born on 18 August 1933 in France to a Polish Jewish father and a Russian Catholic mother. They moved back to Poland in 1936, just in time for the outbreak of World War II. You don’t get worse timing or placement than that.
The Germans invaded when Polanski was 6 years old and interred his family in the Krakow ghetto. His father survived Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp in Austria. His mother did not survive Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Young Roman escaped the ghetto in 1943 after four years of hell and was hidden by Catholic families until the end of the war.
He later became a film-maker to almost instant acclaim (his first full-length movie was nominated for an academy award) and is considered by many to be the best of his generation. It should already be obvious why Polanski had something to say on the big screen but that was only the start to an incredibly turbulent life which you can read about in full here.
He married actress Sharon Tate in 1968. She was 25 years old at the time. He was 35. She was eight-and-a-half months pregnant with their first baby a year later when she and others at her house in Hollywood became the random tragic victims of members of Charles Manson’s gang. She pleaded for the life of her unborn child but they butchered her anyway, stabbing her 16 times, killing her and the baby. The full story is truly horrific.
Polanski was obviously devastated. In fact, devastated can hardly describe what a man must feel when his wife and unborn child are slaughtered like animals by a cult of serial killers when he is not there to protect them. It is a wholly inadequate word to describe something that I don’t think you ever recover from, especially when you have already survived the Polish ghetto and thought you were now free of this kind of brutality. To make matters worse Polanski himself was suspected of involvement for a while and the usual conservative members of the public blamed the darker subject matter of his movies as motivation for the killings.
In 1976, seven years after the death of his wife and unborn child, Polanski entered into a relationship with Nastassja Kinski who was 15 years old at the time after working with her on a movie.
A year later in 1977 he met Samantha Geimer. She was 13. She was described as a precocious and ambitious teenager. Her mother, an actress, moved in the Hollywood circle. Her ambitious daughter was trying to launch her own modelling and acting career at this early age and her mother somehow introduced her to Polanski who offered to photograph her for a magazine.
Things went pretty wrong from there. Polanski started to meet with Samantha and photograph her. Then one day, he took her to Jack Nicholson’s house, took some photographs of her topless in a Jacuzzi, plied her with champagne and Quaaludes (Mandrax) and had sex with her. It is unclear whether he knew her exact age but I presume he did or at least knew she was very young.
You can read the detailed court transcripts of Samantha’s version of the incident under questioning here.
Samantha’s mother reported the incident to the police and Polanski was arrested and charged for having sex with a minor or “unlawful sexual intercourse”. The trial was a media circus. A recent article in Newsweek describing a documentary by Marina Zenovich about Polanski’s trial and flight from the US, considered to be the definitive story of the incident describes it as follows:
Polanski pleaded guilty to “unlawful sexual intercourse”; probation was the recommendation. But the judge began to manoeuvre behind the scenes: he wanted to look tough for the press, though not necessarily send Polanski to prison. He asked a reporter for advice on what sentence he should give; he gave regular interviews to a Hollywood gossip columnist. The day before the sentencing — despite an agreement with Dalton and Gunson — Rittenband was overheard bragging at his country club that he was going to lock up Polanski for the rest of his life. The next day Polanski was gone, his Mercedes abandoned at the Los Angeles airport. Even the prosecutor now says, “I’m not surprised he left under those circumstances”.
Following a blog here on Thought Leader in which both the author and most of the comments called for Polanski’s head, I found it quite frightening that few people knew much about the case at all. It seems that all that was required to work up the mob was the basic outline of the facts. Creepy old guy rapes beautiful young innocent maiden. End of story. Judge him and send him down for life.
I have a problem with this and I shall try to be as sensitive as possible here for rape is never to be trivialised. I feel that Polanski knew the girl was very young. I feel he should have shown both the responsibility and restraint that a man of his age should possess. I do, however, after reading the court transcripts, reading different versions of the story, trying to understand the motives of the girl for being in the situation, trying to understand the shaping of the life and outlook of Polanski, watching bits of the documentary made by Zenovich feel that there was more to this story. Too many things simply do not add up and I do not believe that the girl was as innocent as she is assumed to be simply by virtue of her age.
And while we are on age …
The age of consent varies quite dramatically depending on where you are in the world. The following map shows this variation.
In the US alone, the age of consent varies between 16 and 18. That means you can have consensual sex with someone on one side of a state border and it is called statutory rape on the other. Similarly, you can have consensual sex with girl in California who is 17 and 364 days old and you are a criminal whereas if you had waited a day you are perfectly entitled to have said sex on her 18th birthday. Venture just a bit south to Mexico and it gets as low as 12 in certain provinces. What this says about the age of consent is that it varies hugely depending on your cultural and religious views as a society. It also does not take into account the radical differences in maturity between different individuals at different ages. Spain, a member of the EU, sets their age of consent at 13, the age that Samantha Geimer was at the time of the incident. In the Spanish view, Samantha Geimer was old enough to know exactly what she was doing and what sex was all about. In California, where the incident took place, 18 is the age of consent which means she was a full five years away from understanding the implications of sex and being able to make the decision to engage in it or not.
That is hardly clarity on the issue.
The presumption by many is simply that Polanski lured a young, naive girl to a big deserted house, drugged her and raped her; a sexual predator of the worst kind. There are however some other facts not commonly cited or noted by the mob:
1. The girl was ambitious and trying to launch a modelling career. She had stripped and changed in front of Polanski without his request at a previous photo shoot as well as the shoot in question. She later maintained that she was scared of him and that is why she did not stop him having sex with her. Her actions prior to the sexual incident do not really bear that out.
2. The girl’s mother allowed her 13 year old daughter to go with him without supervision more than once. As an actress and Hollywood veteran trying to promote her daughter as a sex symbol on the cover of an international magazine with a man commonly known for his affair with the 15-year-old Kinski only one year earlier, her mother should surely have known the risks. Perhaps she did. Mine certainly would have.
3. The girl had had sex more than once prior to the incident with Polanski (she stated twice). It is not clear with whom and under what circumstances.
4. The girl had taken drugs prior to the incident with Polanski and from the transcripts appeared to have more than a theoretical knowledge of their effects. In fact I have to admit that from the transcripts she knew more about Mandrax at 13, including having taken it before, than I knew at 23.
5. Both the alcohol and the Quaaludes were accepted without argument and were not forced onto her by her own admission. From the transcripts it certainly does appear as if Polanski was the driving force behind the appearance of both the drinks and the drugs. I presume that he was certainly trying to promote a situation in which the relaxation brought on by the drinks and drugs would overcome the barriers that normally inhibit people from having casual sex. What is not clear is if the girl used the drink and drugs for the same Dutch courage.
6. Polanski maintains that the sex was consensual.
Now I don’t know what happened exactly that day between Geimer and Polanski but neither do you. Only they know and they may even have a different view of how it happened. Here are some possible scenarios:
1. Polanski may have lured her to the house under false pretences and forced himself on her. She may have been drugged enough not to be able to resist. Polanski guilty of rape and statutory rape, girl innocent, mother not involved but irresponsible.
2. Samantha may have seduced him, had sex with him willingly. He was a famous film director and she was a precocious, ambitious teenager. It could have been an error of judgement due to the drugs and alcohol followed by guilt and a sense of shock at the reality of what she had done. Polanski guilty of sex with a minor and highly irresponsible, girl highly irresponsible and dishonest after the fact, mother not involved but irresponsible.
3. She could have seduced him at the request of her mother to further her career. Polanski guilty of sex with a minor and highly irresponsible, girl manipulated and guilty, mother guilty.
4. She may have been told by her mother “do whatever he wants, he can make your career” and acted accordingly when the time came not knowing the limits her mother implied in the statement. Polanski guilty of sex with a minor and irresponsible, girl manipulated, mother irresponsible, bad combination of behaviour and poor communication.
5. She could have seduced him knowingly at the request of her mother for the massive settlement she could and did earn. Polanski was an extremely wealthy man. Polanski guilty of sex with a minor and highly irresponsible but also a victim, girl guilty, mother most guilty.
Some of the above scenarios are admittedly more likely than others and no doubt other possibilities exist. None are impossible though.
That Polanski was irresponsible and behaved criminally in having sex with such a young girl is irrefutable. What are unknown are the girl and her mother’s motives and whether they had any influence on his behaviour. What is also unknown is his state of mind at that time. The judge received a probation report and psychiatric evaluation, both indicating that Polanski should not serve jail time:
“Rittenband responded by ordering the filmmaker to the prison in Chino for a 90-day ‘diagnostic evaluation’ that he said would ‘enable the Court to reach a fair and just decision’. Prison officials released Polanski on January 28 1978, after 42 days and advised the judge that testing indicated his sentence should not include additional prison time. In Rittenband’s chambers with the defence and prosecution present, the judge labelled the prison report ‘a whitewash’ and said he planned to send Polanski back to prison for an additional 48 days if Polanski would voluntarily agree to deportation. Informed of this by his attorney, on February 1 1978, Polanski responded by fleeing to France, just hours before he was to be formally sentenced.”
As mentioned earlier Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse and made an out-of-court settlement with Samantha Geimer. In other words, the two of them, through their lawyers, came to an agreement that suited both of them under the circumstances. Polanski fled essentially because he believed the judge was going to overrule this settlement and incarcerate him as an example anyway. My argument here in his favour, which does not absolve him of his actions in any way but serves to explain his flight, is that Roman Polanski was in a good position to judge just how precarious the rights of an individual can be inside a flawed system. He suffered at the hands of the Nazis and his rape trial was a circus.
What about Samantha Geimer? The fact that the trial was a circus and that the judge seemed to be a publicity-hungry nutcase intent on making his name out of the trial may have prejudiced her chances of seeing justice done too. However, she, through her lawyers reached an agreement with Polanski. This agreement took into account the potential trauma of a trial, the amount of damage she felt she had suffered out of the ordeal and matched them with an amount of money that she agreed to accept to settle the matter. We can argue the ethics of older men having sex with very young women from all the yellow countries on the map until the sun explodes, but that fact is telling.
What is unclear is if Polanski ever paid the settlement amount to her. If he has not, that is unforgivable since his problem with the system does not change the fact that he agreed to pay her the money personally to compensate her for her damages and settle the matter. Of course, if one of the entrapment scenarios played out then I understand his reluctance to pay but that does not absolve him of the legal duty to pay it. The fact is disputed and Polanski and Geimer have said nothing since a civil case in 1993 on the payment issue so he may well have paid it without the fact being made public.
Samantha Geimer has spoken out recently and asked for all charges to be dropped and the case to be dismissed.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009 at 12:33 pm and is filed under Perspective.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
113 Responses to “Kangaroo courts part 1: The Polanski case”
Congradulations to the writer !
This article is the only one which is concise and precise at the same time. Finally, one intelligent reporter…
Thank you for this great article. This is what I would write myself if I would have the ability to write good articles and if I would have the courage to stand against the internet lynch mob. I hope Mr. Polanski will be able to fight of the extradition request. His chances for a fair trial in the US are slim. This is more about politics and money than anything else. What absolutely amazes me is that Swiss Ministry of Justice got the new US extradition request in 2005. In 2006 the same Justice Ministry approved Mr. Polanski’s request for a permission to buy a house in Switzerland. (Every foreigner buying a house in Switzerland has to be approved by the Ministry of Justice and every case is apparently checked thoroughly). Now the same Ministry of Justice decided to arrest Mr. Polanski at a Film Festival. (we will give you Mr. Polanski, just don’t ask us anymore about UBS accounts). At the same time Switzerland is allowing war criminals from all over the world to live in their country unharmed and shielded from the public.
This post was mentioned on Twitter by KFSIBA: Kangaroo courts part 1: The Polanski case: She was eight-and-a-half months pregnant with their first baby a yea.. http://bit.ly/3OAA5p…
The girl admitted in her depostion that she had had sex with her boyfriend before she had sex with Polanski, and that she drank alcohol prior as well.
The prosecutors chose to prosecute Polanski but left alone the boyfriend. I guess the prosecutors were star struck and wanted some publicity.
I am not going to weep for every girl that has no respect for herself. She chose Vogue magazine and a relationship with a know movie director over her body and boyfriend.
1)he raped a kid- call it statutory rape if you like please dont minimise it by saying consensual sex. she was 5 years below age of consent.Spain has age of consent as 13- good for the spanish please lets talk about california now!
2)He ran away from justice. he is a convicted felon a fugitive (not any more thank god.)If the judge had sent him to prison he could have appealed and had his other day in court. he decided to flee he should go to jail for that.
3) ghetto kids with single mums nasty upbringing- as soon as they do crime - off to jail they go. we dont hear apologists like you pleading for them.
4)his upbringing though unfortunate is neither here nor there. so living in a ghetto in poland made him do it. so his wife getting killed tragically made him do it. This man likes little girls-remember 15 year old natasha kinski.
He should and will rot in hell. thank god for justice.
Cant stand people who want the laws to change as soon as it affects someone they like. LET THE MAN ROT IN JAIL
“Now I don’t know what happened exactly that day between Geimer and Polanski but neither do you.”
Which is why the matter should be concluded in court. The evidence for the judge being a “publicity-hungry nutcase” is even thinner than the evidence for Polanski being a predatory pervert. No judge is ever required to honour a plea bargain or settlement in a criminal case. In any event, what is the actual evidence (a documentary by a Polanski disciple doesn’t count) that the judge was about to “make an example of him” (and what the hell is the problem with that anyway, as long as it’s done within the confines of the law?).
The US justice system may have its faults, but I really don’t think it can be compared to Nazism.
All the mitigating factors you mention can be laid out before the court, as can any actual evidence of misconduct by the trial court. If Polanski isn’t happy with his sentence, the last time I looked the US had an appeal system.
If one is going to speculate about motives, one might well ask why Polanski is unwilling to exhaust his many rights under the US justice system, especially with the cash at his disposal.
I’m sure Samantha Geimer is tired of this circus. It could have ended a long time ago by Polanski taking his medicine, like any other citizen subject to the laws of the country he has chosen.
Perhaps what you say is true, I cannot say either way, but your introduction of his terrible and painful past has nothing to do with whether he broke the law or not, it is an attempt at introducing sympathy to your argument.
As an educated engineer I thought you would be more thorough, but seems you are smitten with Roman
1) Polanski admitted in his autobiography that there never was a ‘photo shoot’ for Vogue. So why take any photos of her, twice. No mistaking that this was a ’setup’ for something not kosher (i.e. Samantha
2) Roman asked her to remove clothes, not her idea
3) Sex #1:neighbor boy at Age 8 #2:with 17 YO BoyF
4) One thing Roman wasn’t able to explain, and he admits it even today, was why Samantha lied and told him she had Asthma so she could get away from the jacuzzi and him. To this day the only explanation was SHE WAS TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM HIM!
5) Mother informed after sister heard Samantha tell Boyfriend on phone. Not sure about your sister, but my sister never called to brag to her boyfriend about how she had just discovered how great it was to be sodomized! If it was voluntary on her part she would not have told boyfriend.
Roman was afraid of REASONABLE DOUBT because if it wasn’t a photo shoot, what was the purpose? It was his champagne and qualuude, not hers. Any female juror would know that Samantha, with her 2 sex experiences, at 8 and 13, would not be asking Roman to sodomize her, or just ask anyone who has been to one of our PMITA prisons.
What a lot of verbiage to try and defend the indefensible. You can dress this up how you like, there is no doubt that Polanski took unfair advantage of this situation. He could surely have exercised restraint and wasn’t forced to have sex with this impressionable young girl. He could have insisted that she was accompanied by an adult, for example. Say your own 13 yr old daughter brought a friend home and she ‘came on’ to you, would you succumb? It is clear, to me at least, that he cunningly engineered the whole thing and should now pay the price. Where does morality come into this, or does being ‘the best of his generation’ somehow excuse him from complying with the same set of values as simple people like us? Even if the trial was a ‘media circus’, it doesn’t excuse the culpability. Maybe we have become so used to this kind of reasoning around justice in SA that for some this thinking has become habitual.
William Smith - I agree that Polanski took advantage of the situation. I agree that he should have been more responsible. Her mother could also have insisted that she come along. This innocent girl could have declined the drinks, she could have declined the drugs. So much could have happened that did not.
In answer to your loaded question about my daughter’s friend, my honest answer is that I don’t know. Watch ‘American Beauty’ for a better answer than mine about dysfunctionality in human interactions but here is mine regardless:
If I was drugged and drunk, going through an extremely dark patch in my life where my wife had been murdered by Charles Manson and the world seemed like a hostile, violent and terrible place that made no sense, that displayed no fairness, that seemed to single me out for horror and atrocity…I may have buckled to the advances of a sophisticated, sexy thirteen year old as a temporary distraction from hell. The world thinks nothing of using these same 13 year olds as sex symbols on the covers of international magazines for all to admire and lust after but baulks at the actual sex. We are far out of touch with reality here.
And that is my point. Unless you are in Polanski’s head and in his situation or Geimer’s for that matter, harsh judgement is arrogant. They settled out of court.
I would also like to point out another major misconception:
Polanski’s fame, if anything, made his and Samantha’s problems worse. His fame is the reason the trial was a circus, the reason the judge wanted to make an example of him, the reason the whole thing possibly happened in the first place. To state that his fame is the reason he is being defended or being let off is not accurate. There is possibly an element of the Polanski movie fan that will support blindly but on balance, I think his fame was to his detriment in this case.
We seem to have apedantic obsession with the application law as opposed to the pursuit of justice. The former does not necessarily equate to the latter, and the online lynch mob clearly doesn’t realise that.
Besides, the word’s greatest artists have always pushed our boundaires of tolerance, whether it be through their work or through their own behaviour. That is why they should be celebrated. France realises this, America does not. That’s why France has Michelin Stars and America has Mcdonalds.
Well written and researched article. How many years after his wife was murdered did he commit statuary rape plus sodomy and give her drugs? Sorry boet, but we must all answer for our actions. Let him face a retrial. The passage of time and his age now should have no bearing on the case. Do you know if he took a shower afterward?
I don’t really have a clue what I think…
I do know that keeping tabs on children, especially those under the age of consent, is essential, to avoid any nasty ill-effects.
Four years ago, in the midst of our AIDS-ridden society, I was telling my son that he was the property of the government, as were most of his girlfriends and that they could be jailed if they became too amorous. It worked for him.
Most parents take a different view these days, though few did at that time…
The whole story makes a point about just how much the world has changed. Perhaps the lass thought sex was okay but knew too little about it to include oral or anal sex in her assessment, finding the latter less to her liking.
Da man in question sounds as though he was determined not to get her pregnant…
Ultimately we have to apply the same view or caution in the Jacob Zuma case otherwise we will assume you are asking for a softer analysis based on Polanski’s Krakow roots and talent in the filmmaking(and I like him too, especially The Pianist)
haiwa tiger, Gwen, Po and all the internet lynch mobs,
When will you finally admit that “the girl” (age 14-3 weeks) was sent by her mother hoping to follow the track of Nastassja Kinski, in vain, but received $ 600′000 plus the fame she was searching. Just look at her smile posing in the pictures in front of Polanski’s poster.
My understanding is that Samantha did not consent to intercourse with Polanski - if that is the case then this it is rape and cannot be dressed up as anything else. I am curious as to your constant assertion that she was a sophisticated 13 year old out to seduce Polanski. As for the agreement reached between the parties, it has no basis in criminal law. You cannot drop a charge against a murderer or rapist - the state brings that charge not the complainant. There are good reasons for this - the defendent cannot then place undue influence upon his accuser to withdraw the charges as it is not up to her. Their arrangement is a civil one and not relevant to your argument as to whether he should be punished for rape or not. Why is it that you seem predisposed to believing that the victim here, i.e. the 13 year old is somehow more manipulative than Mr. Polankski, a man significantly older and more experienced than her. What bearing does her relationship with her boyfriend have on this at all? Is it your contention that sexually active girls and women cannot be raped? You also have not really asserted any reason as to why you believe she cried rape if she had not been raped. I don’t find this article well researched at all - just another attempt to defend a star.
I’ve already seen American Beauty (at least twice). It certainly is about ‘dysfunctionality in human interactions’, but I obviously missed the part which implied that this makes whatever you do excuseable.
Was Polanski really still ‘going through an extremely dark patch’ 8 years after the death of his wife? Not so dark, it seems, for him to have made a number of films and had other liaisons. In any event, are you saying that the ‘dark patch’ defense makes rape of a 13 yr old OK, even if she was ‘sophisticated, sexy’ at 13, as you baselessly allege?
Where do you draw the line – let’s say the girl had died for whatever reason (athsma attack, drowned in the Jacuzzi etc.)- would you contend that his allegedly ‘drugged and drunk’ state etc. exonerated him from any responsibility?
(As a matter of interest, I haven’t seen any ‘13 year olds as sex symbols on the covers of international magazines for all to admire and lust after’ so don’t get that inference either)
I also don’t get the inference to your ‘they settled out of court’ statement. If Geimer didn’t feel aggrieved, why would she pursue a civil case against him? What he did by settling, was effectively to buy her silence(smart!)and some insurance for the future. No doubt at all that as part of the agreement, she was precluded from ever talking negatively about the case or him again.
Well, the author of this piece can now add “apologist for a child rapist” to his resume. Job well done, I suppose, though I am dubious as to whether the job was worth doing in the first place.
Trish - From the transcripts it is not clear that she did not consent either. She made an excuse about asthma in the jacuzzi and at some point said she should leave or had to go. At no point did she scream or shout or cry rape or call for help or do anything that would have indicated absolutely that she felt she was being raped.
She basically kept quiet and may well have been thinking rape but that hardly helps. Thats pretty scary for us men. As frightening as rape may be for women, so being called a rapist after the act is for us men. Before you call someone a rapist, you had better be sure that is exactly what he is because it is one hell of a label. Polanski was not violent by her own admission. It may well have been a horrible crossing of wires.
I do, however, understand your concerns. I am not protecting a star. I am presenting a defense for a man convicted of statutory rape that the majority are calling a rapist. While there may be a similarity in the terminology, the acts are poles apart. If your son had consensual sex with an underage girl would you want him branded a rapist?
I think Polanski had or has a distasteful penchant for very young girls. All I am trying to get across is that I see a man behind the monster that you see and that this story is not clear cut.
William - Good, then explain to me if you see Lester as a rapist or as a tragic person and why. Did his state of mind and the state of his marriage affect the timing of the liason with his daughter’s friend?
Yes, I do think he was still going through a dark patch. I don’t think you ever recover. I don’t think liasons are proof that you are perfectly ok. Those happen for all sorts of reasons good and bad. I am saying (as did the psychological report at the time) that Polanski was in a dark place and not entirely capable of deducing right from wrong as a normal adjusted person would be. Thats all.
You think you haven’t see 13 year old sex symbols and that is exactly the point. I helped you out here, went to wikipedia and searched for ‘Model age of 13′ and the list goes off the page. Here you go:
13 year olds and younger sell sex before they are legally allowed to have it was my point. That requires a certain degree of sophistication around the topic. All that says is that it is POSSIBLE that Geimer knew what she was doing in this department.
If Geimer was truly aggrieved and traumatised and believed she was raped, would she not have wanted to see him behind bars? Why take the cash?
[…] Thought Leader » Grant Walliser » Kangaroo courts part 1: The Polanski case www.thoughtleader.co.za/grantwalliser/2009/11/03/kangaroo-courts-part-1-the-polanski-case – view page – cached Every so often we are faced with a news story that divides opinion and causes heavy debate. In these cases, emotion often rules supreme and otherwise pleasant people become laptop dictators… Read moreEvery so often we are faced with a news story that divides opinion and causes heavy debate. In these cases, emotion often rules supreme and otherwise pleasant people become laptop dictators demanding justice and punishment. They seldom know more than the basic public stance, cry righteous indignation without a semblance of objectivity, and the baying mob Read less […]
It still amazes me that any attempt to explain even to engage in speculative hypotheses is viewed as excusing. Explaining is not necesarily excusing
and excusing has absolutely nothing to do with explaining. Of course, judging is much easier to do than explaining.
And as a prior commentator noted, the application of law does not necessarily represent any pursuit of justice.
Age of consent in CA was 18 when Polanski was screwing a 15 year old before he screwed the 13 year old so why was he not prosecuted for the 15 year old? Unless this question is addressed there’s no need to consider the 13 year old unless she was raped and not just statutory raped. There is absolutely no one who understands statutory rape laws better than I do because I spent 15 years in prison challenging my illegal conviction.
Havelock Vetinari on November 5th, 2009 at 7:19 am
In my view Polanki is a peadophile, judging from the ages of the girls he engaged with sexually. There is probably a lot more that havent made the headlines
Polanski knew that engaging sexually with a minor was an offence in the US, despite, that in other parts of the world the ages of consent may be younger.
We live in a western society, where certain laws and moral obligations have been accepted.
I also find the innuendo, that the girl or her mother, had ulterior motives, and thus could have seduced Polanki, distasteful to say the least.
The only offence mentioned here, is that Polanski had sex with a minor, but he was actually guilty of more than that. One is taking pornographic pictures of a minor, as well as giving drugs and alcohol to a minor. Both very serious offences, and also an indication of his intent on seducing the girl on that day.
He was fully aware of the severity of his crimes, and refusing to accept the consequence of his actions, decided to escape justice, commiting yet another offence.
If all these offences had been commited by just an average person, who wasnt famous, he would have been declared an habitual criminal.
Nobody wants to judge Polanski in a Kangaroo court, but are justifyably calling for him to face his day in court. And not be excused because he is famous, or managed to evade capture for a long time.
Michael - Thanks for the label and the haughty judgement, proves my point a bit don’t you think? You have swept aside the details, ignored the complexity of the argument and made a sweeping and damning statement with as grotesque a label as you could possibly conjure up.
That, of course, is your right.
I just ask that when the vast majority of society do exactly the same as you have just done, what chance do we have of fairness and objectivity in our assessments of these kinds of debate? When we do not try to understand, when we do not look at the alternatives and we do not recognise the middle ground between plain black and white we become the fickle mob.
Ok Grant, lets for a moment assume that everything you asserted is in fact, fact. Then what is your and other Polanski apologists issue with him being returned to the US and standing trial for this. Surely he can raise all your points as mitigation? My reading of the case places it in a more sinister light than simply statutory rape. There is a powerplay here that seems obvious to me, there is an older, famous defendent and a very young unknown girl. Try as I might, I can see no motivation or benefit to her in crying rape. It seems clear to me from the evidence that you have put forward that she was clearly uncomfortable with the situation - something one would expect an older more experienced individual to be able to pick up on step back from if rape wasn’t the intent. This all just reads to me like another case of applying different standards to the rich and famous.
Trish - My issue is not actually that Polanski should be returned for trial or not. My issue is with the public calling this man a rapist when it is not clear that he is.
But trial, ok.
He has already had a trial. It was a circus. The judge became a celeb, chatted to gossip columnists, asked a reporter what sentence he should give and boasted about what he was going to do at the country club the day before sentencing. That is hardly an individual that I would trust to give me a fair hearing.
Polanski gets this info and decides not to take the chance with this loose cannon-judge and leaves the country. Polanski did not flee because he knew he knew he was guilty. He fled because his faith in the system faultered. The prosecutor is on record as saying he understands why he did so UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
To put it into perspective, place yourself in the following situation:
You are touring Saudi Arabia. You wander into a shop looking at items and inadvertantly leave the shop with an item in your hand. You are apprehended and arrested for theft. You did not intend theft and during the trial you plead guilty for removing the item but in mitigation you explain that you just had a lapse of concentration as you wandered out the shop. The shopkeeper believes you and says ok, just pay me for the item…
…and we can call it quits. The trial, however, attracts international attention, throngs of Saudis mob you as you walk into court each day, the world is watching. Al Jazeera report on your childhood, they interview the judge who is by now a celeb in Saudi for handling this benchmark case. He jokes with reporters asking them what sentence they would give. Its your life, your hand at stake here but the whole thing is a publicity circus. The Saudi judge wants to send a clear message. Even though Saudi law allows for a fine and deportation, he is overheard saying he is going to chop off your hand at the Mosque the day before sentencing. You don’t know if this is true or not. You are lucky enough to be out on bail, your embassy contact says to you they have a flight you could take to skip the country instead of waiting for sentencing.
What do you do?
Are you a thief or a shop lifter or a dopey individual who didn’t realise what you were doing?
Did your newfound fame help or hurt your cause?
When the stakes suddenly become so high and your faith in the system is zero because it is not your own Western culture I predict that you, Trish, would gap it as quickly as you could because you would not feel that you could get a fair outcome.
Would that change 30 years later when Switzerland sends you back to Saudi?
I am certain that if this case had involved a normal unknown person, we would not even have had this argument today.
In all certainty everyone would have agreed that he should be locked up for as long as possible, and he deserved what he got, like numerous others who committed the same crime. And that would have been the end of the matter.
It infuriates me when people have double standards and judge the famous differently than any other person.
In my book, one crime isnt ok, and others not. So just as you dont commit murder, you are expected not to urinate in the street. If we reach a stage, where certain crimes are ok, or cetain people can get away with it, due to to their fame or standing,we are well on our way to anarchy.
If Polanski had been ‘innocently seduced’(highly unlikely), as was one of the scenarios, put forth by the author, he should have been a man enough to have faced his accusers, and defended himself in court.
If every accused decided to abscond from their responsibility, of facing charges, where is the world going to end up.
I dont know where the author of this article is trying to lead the reader, but it cannot be a good place.
Your Saudi analogy doesn’t fit in this instance. Polanski was in a Western country - and a judicial system where there is certainly recourse if one can show that they were treated unfairly. Additionally, it is a legal system designed to best represent the rich. Polankski had recourse. But even if he didn’t, a new trial would likely not have the same judge allocated so that seems a moot point. The fact is that by leaving he invalidated all agreements, why should he not be extradited and retried? Why is he, in your mind, the exception. Every mitigating point you have attempted to raise can be raised in his defence. He is labelled a rapist because that is what he pleaded guilty to at the time. Should he wish to rid himself of that label, he needs to stand trial and plead not guilty.
My issue with the way you have portrayed this case is the fact that you seem to lump an awful lot of blame and innuendo at the door of the victim and as of yet, I have found nothing in your writing to justify this other than your admiration of Polanski. Why do you believe she cried rape if she wasn’t in fact raped? What makes you think she was the seductress? Where is anything to support this view in your argument?
Now that everyone had a chance to express themselves, I would like to ask one simple question.
The original sentence, 32 years ago, was that he serves 90 days in prison. He did 45 days before fleeing the US. Today, he has been locked in a swiss jail for another 45 days, can’t we agree that he has served his sentence and can now return to his devasted family ?
Trish - your faith in the US judicial system is staggering. Perhaps you could comfort all the Guantanamo Bay inmates with your views. The US is by and large a conservative Christian country drunk on its own power. Its legal system reflects this. Just as you would rather not be tried for shoplifting in Saudi, so I would be terrified of being tried for anything resembling a biblical morality issue in the US. Thats what this is.
“He is labelled a rapist because that is what he pleaded guilty to at the time” - wrong, totally wrong! He admitted to having unlawful sex with a minor. He maintained it was consensual. Calling him a rapist lumps him into a cell with the guy who drags a screaming woman into an alley, beats her into submission and violates her at gun or knife point. If nothing else can we at least see a distinction between that and what Polanski did or are they honestly the same thing to you?
I suggest you read the original article again. Nowhere do I state that I am a Polanski fan. I actually know very little about his movies. I state repeatedly that he was criminally irresponsible, the girl was very young, BUT I can see elements of the evidence that suggests that there COULD be mitigating reasons for this. That, however, seems to make you and many others uncomfortable because in your world he must be an evil rapist and the girl must have been totally innocent.
Trish - “Why do you believe she cried rape if she wasn’t in fact raped? What makes you think she was the seductress? Where is anything to support this view in your argument?”
She was a 13 year old that had taken drugs, been drunk and had sex twice before(raped twice before by your definition). Does that strike you as the average 13 year old? Her mother allowed her to be photographed alone with Polanski when she HAD to have known that he had an affair with a 15 year old a year earlier. Does that strike you as normal and responsible parenting? She had sex with Polanski (he also gave her oral sex) and at no point did she scream or fight or resist beyond saying that she had to go home twice.
I think the experience was terrible for her and upon reflection after allowing Polanski to drive her home, called rape.
I think she unfortunately had the experience with a man that was in a dark place personally and was not in a position to adequately discern right from wrong. That DOES NOT absolve him BUT does provide a mitigating factor which taken in conjunction with her behaviour is TO MY MIND significant.
Add to this mess the conservative publicity hungry judge boasting about putting him away for life and any thinking individual might start to surmise that a fair trial was going to be difficult to ensure.
Grant, I read the MG piece about Geimer moving to have the charges dropped. No-where in that possibly incomplete piece is it mentioned that she says she wasn’t raped, etc. It only mentions that she is being hounded and her life has been made a living hell by unwanted intruders.
Polanski’s past is truly terrible - as is the past of many others. We don’t see everyone with a terrible past living the way Polanski did. He was raised and sheltered along the way by those who apparently cared to do so - why did he not choose a ‘better’ way?
The judge in the original case probably smelled an opportunity to make his name with this high-profile case, as you and others have suggested.
The justice system is (fortunately or unfortunately) set up so that only if you get caught, tried, and found guilty, do you get penalised in some way. This is the system and has been for some time. If the judge chooses to act within the law that allows him to exercise discretion (even if for his own purposes), then he may do so. Just because his motive was wrong, doesn’t automatically invalidate the outcome.
What is your alternative? What do you think should have happened?
So, is the US justice system fit to try anybody at all? Who is in fact eligible to be tried and convicted in this legal hellhole? Is it just war refugees and bereaved spouses who get a general amnesty or is it the general public (because the US court suck so badly) or is it anyone who can construct a nice tale of traumatic life experiences or is it just people who don’t think that what they did ought to be a crime?
As for your description of the judge’s behaviour - according to whom? We will never know what sentence Polanski would have received, all we have to go on is his carefully constructed version of events, nicely cinematised in a sympathetic “documentary” (so much more objective than a trial conducted in open court in a constitutional democracy).
Let him bring his evidence before the court - the appeal court, if necessary - like everyone else who’s been caught sleeping with children.
Your stories are not very imaginative, they’re the defence’s narrative in rape trials everywhere, but they are nevertheless pure fiction and opinion until some actual evidence is produced for them, and tested. Incidentally, there’s a nice news story floating around at the moment on how the Saudis treat paedophiles. Are you seriously going to persist with your comparison of the US justice system to the Saudi one?
Paul - From the evidence I have at my disposal, I think Polanksi should have been put on probation as the psychological report concluded and completed his 3 month jail stint. He should have been sent for compulsory therapy both for his penchant for young girls and to get his life and perspective back on track. I think he should have payed a massive settlement to Samantha Geimer because what he did was not excuseable even if it was consensual. I think the judge should have made it clear that should he appear again under these circumstances, he would be treated in a much harsher manner.
If this was a clearer case of rape, I would not have written this article. If Polanski had restrained Geimer or threatened her or been violent in any way or if she had screamed, I could honestly call it quits at stat rape. All I am saying is that it appears to me that there was enough of a possibility that Polanski thought this was consensual and that downgrades the crime somewhat for me. It makes it possible that Geimer’s silence was taken to mean approval to Polanski when actually she was frozen in fear. I see a tragedy in there involving two damaged people, not the monster and the maiden that most seem to see. I might be wrong.
Gwen - The US system has its flaws. That was my point to those who believe it is flawless. I could have simply told the OJ Simpson story where justice, it appears, was not done due to over zealous policing. Its flawed. Sometimes innocent people get locked up, sometimes guilty people go free.
So, now that he has been a fugitive from this system for 30 years do you think they will just try him for rape or make an example of him for fleeing? Are you certain that they will be fair in handling this case? If you were Polanski would you take that chance?
What I can tell you is if you believe that the US is closest we have to a free thinking and liberal democracy you are far off the mark. Give me Western Europe any day.
The judge is widely considered to have been a showboating maniac. The prosecutor is on record as saying he would have fled under the same circumstances.
You dismiss my evidence. You say it appears in rape trials everywhere. Lets swing it onto you then. Can you prove that Geimer did not have consensual sex with Polanski? Where is your evidence? The rape part of this trial comes down to his word against hers. There was no evidence of him forcing himself onto her violently. If it was rape, it was a remarkably calm and easy rape for Polanski to perform. Where is your evidence that he raped her, besides her age?
Polanski had sex with the girl and under California law such is illegal; no matter his or her motivations, etc.
And I am a supporter of Polanski that he not be extradicted to the United States. I am interested in justice re the two parties involved. If he comes back all we will have is suffering for the two key persons involved. Both have suffered enough. The people who would profit from bringing Polanski back in are the media; those who want media attention and the self-righteous. Let us not confuse justice with the application of law.
Grant, I am not disagreeing with you - I feel that we need to distinguish between what we think should happen, regardless of the system in place, and what we think should happen in the system of the day.
In the system of the day back then, was there room for your suggested corrective action? That’s why governments get voted in, make legislation, and allow for judgemental discretion based on consensus views designed to reflect the public mood (right or wrong, agree or disagree).
What should the response of the people (accuser, judge, prosecutor, defendant, defense) have been in the Polanski case, given that they had participated in a process that ultimately gave rise to the justice system they then decried? Do you really think that the defense wouldn’t have jumped at a technical loophole to get their defendant freed at the expense of justice (whatever that justice amounted to)? What should our response be?
I agree that he shouldn’t have been locked away with the key thrown away etc. - but what you suggest may not have been possible then - and, therefore, on that basis, may not be possible now without a retrial under a new, more human system.
You are putting words in my mouth Grant. At no time did I assert the the US legal system is flawless - there is no such thing as a flawless legal system. I do however, find your attempt to compare it to the Saudi system somewhat ridiculous. Throwing Guanatamou into the argument is equally as ridiculous - there has been absolutely no indication on any level that Polanski will be arrested as a terrorist and subjected to a military tribunal. Your use of these in your examples is disingenuous and does nothing to further your argument.
Your question, which isn’t really a question simply a poor attempt to bolster your argument “If nothing else can we at least see a distinction between that and what Polanski did or are they honestly the same thing to you?” is clearly answered in my posts above. This does not read to me as simply statutory rape. The little we know about what happened that day, the drugs, the alcohol, the age and power difference as well as the plea about her asthma and her wanting to go home all indicate more to me than a simple case of statutory rape. Many women do not kick and scream while being raped - this does not mean that they consented to the act. If you believe that non consent can only be demonstrated in one way I would be a little worried.
The facts that we do know about this case is that a much older more sophisticated man fed a 13 year old girl drugs and alcohol and then proceeded to have sex with her. Transcripts from her testimony read: “”And what did Mr. Polanski do?”
“He got in and went to the deepest part…
“He said, ‘Come down here’.
“And I said, ‘No, no I got to get out’… He had his hands on my sides like right around here and he was…”
“Around your waist?”
“Yes. Then he started to move and I got out.”…
“What did you do when he said, ‘Let’s go in the other room’?
“I was going, ‘No, I think I’d better go home’. Because I was afraid.”
It seems she said no more than once.
She goes on to say in her testimony: “”What happened after that?”
“He started to have intercourse with me.
“He asked, he goes, ‘Are you on the pill?’”
“And I went ‘No’… he goes, ‘Would you like me to go in through your back?’
“And I went ‘No’. I think he said something like right after I said I was not on the pill, right before he said, ‘Oh, I won’t come inside of you then’. Then he lifted my legs up farther and went in through my anus.”"
She was 13, she was drugged, given alcohol and sodomised by a much older man. What part of this reads as consent to you?
Grant, The time has come for me to share my experience and beliefs.
Since his arrest by the Swiss authorities, over 20′000 articles have been written on the Polanski case worldwide. I have read about a thousand of them and feel increasingly sick, to the state of vomiting, by the content and the comments of people unfamiliar with this story. I have abstained from replying to any, until you caught my attention by writing precisely and concisely what I believe to be an accurate description and a true analysis of what could have really happened 32 years ago. You free him from the false image of a child sex predator, giving the impression that you know Roman Polanski for who he truly is, a damaged man.
I confess that I have had the privilege of privately knowing Roman Polanski since the time he fled the US until today. As a matter of circumstances, I happened to be his only floor neighbour in Paris in 1978, then his friend during the Ibiza period of the 80’s and a very close friend in Paris (seeing him everyday), during the 90’s, until the release of his film “The Pianist” (2002), when I decided to leave Paris to settle back down in Spain. Over the years, I came to know and understand a lot about this man.
Your statement of Roman having been devastated by the tragic murder of his wife and unborn child is totally correct…
…Even 40 years later, he still goes into depression when Sharon Tate’s name is mentioned or when the anniversary of the slaughter, on the 9th of August, takes place. This horrible event has overshadowed all the past horrors that he had to endure during the war as a child, as well as all the triumphs he achieved through his work. His guilt remains in the fact that he was absent during the killing to either protect Sharon and his unborn son or, at worse, die by their side.
His past attraction for young girls, I say past because his wife is now 43 years old, is a lot simpler than sexuality. One must realize that after Sharon’s death, people were extremely curious about all the details concerning his private life. Younger women were much less likely to question him about the facts and, were more interested in having a good time on the spot, thus allowing him to momentarily forget the tragedy. In deed, drugs and sex acted as a solace during this dark period of his life.
The presumption by many that Roman is a sexual predator and a pedophile is an absurd fallacy. First, having known him during 30 years, I can confirm that he never touched a girl in an ambiguous manner. On the contrary, he has always shown respect and courtesy towards everyone, especially the opposite sex, and no one, other than Samantha Geimer, has ever claimed otherwise…
…Second, he has never since had sex with a girl considered “too young”, even in situations when he was confronted with ambitious Lolitas, which for a film director of his caliber happens quite often. Third, since meeting his wife Emmanuelle, 25 years ago, he has been a faithful husband and a remarkable father for their two children.
Finally, I find it frightening that authors and commentators are calling for Roman’s head after a sin committed so long ago involving a young girl who, now a woman, has been begging for the charges to be dropped. Roman has always maintained that the sex was consensual. Yes, she was too young, yes he used bad judgement, but the two people involved are now being hurt far more than by what happened that evening. Beyond the political and legal circus, yet another tragedy in his life, Roman’s outrageous detention can only be accepted by Gandhi’s famous quote;
“God sometimes does try to the uttermost those whom he wishes to bless”.
It has been a long time since I have read anything so engaging. Not only Grant’s original post, all the responses too. Here are some (I would presume) fairly educated people disagreeing debating and never quite reaching consensus. So how can we expect the justice system with one judge and a potentially uneducated jury to get it right?
To say that the US legal system is flawed is a massive understatement. History has shown that the US legal system has failed many innocent victims.
The Polanski issue is not whether he was guilty or not; it is about you and I judging without facts and how poisonous our world becomes when we call for the hanging of a man without been a witness to the incident.
Rely on the facts and your own brain, not the legal system. This takes courage. If my daughter was raped and I had proof, I would like to think I would kill the man. Happily. Free of guilt or worry. Some situations require us to act above the law most of us don’t have the minerals to do so.
Mr Polanski and Sam Geimer seem to be okay with each other. Why should we get involved in what should happen to him? She is the one who was apparently affected. She has fogiven.
An out of court settlement, be it violent or financial, may be the way forward if we have the courage.
Grant, all legal systems have their flaws. Nowhere did I say the US had the best justice system (straw man alert). However, where does that leave us? Can anyone refuse to be tried in the US on the basis of the real or perceived flaws in the legal system?
Blah blah fugitive for 30 years and how you and I think his case will be handled. Pure speculation. A trial is of necessity public and conducted in accordance with the law of the land, including, in the US, the Constitution. If it is unfairly conducted, it may be appealed or reviewed. In conducting his defence, Polanski has advantages not available to most people whose obligation to submit to the laws of their country is not in question.
If the judge was a showboating maniac (widely considered by who, exactly? Polanski’s publicity machine?) and the prosecutor is on record as criticising the trial (he’s also on record contradicting himself), then Polanski has recourse in law.
I do not dismiss your evidence, because you don’t present any, just feverish imaginings. I have no particular interest in whether Polanski is guilty or innocent, simply that the merits of the case are determined by due legal process and not cinematography and spin-doctoring.
The evidence such as it is can’t be examined, because it was never presented and tested in court (no accident, I’m sure). Of course Polanski maintains that sex was consensual…
…he only confessed to the lesser offence, and with the trial unresolved he’d have to be a loony to say anything else. I simply cannot understand why you seem to believe that the truth can be more easily found by the chattering classes sifting over the untested evidence, gossip, publicity material and speculation rather than by the processes of criminal law (imperfect as they may be).
When he ran for it he accepted the risk that people would always whisper “rapist”. Possibly he felt that was preferable to having it proved beyond reasonable doubt. But so what? Sticks and stones and all that. Some people call him “genius” and “victim” too, for that matter. In the end, he’s proved himself more than capable of looking after himself, so perhaps your sympathy could better be employed elsewhere.
Gwen - thanks for your comment. I have run out of ways to say the same thing. I suspect that you may be a person for whom the law has always worked and worked well and hence you have great faith in it. I agree that it is the best system we have for handling crimes and disputes and in most cases it works very well indeed.
However, when the fallability of the law presents itself, the law is outdated or the law is under the control of people who do not have its fair and logical elements foremost in their minds, the law becomes a very scary thing indeed. Where you once had justice you now have a system with massive power to abuse. I suggest you look north to the Zimbabwean trial of Roy Bennet for terrorism for a great example.
There seems to be a widely held belief that this personal abuse side of the law was in evidence at the Polanski trial. As such I understand why he fled. You do not consider this to even be an option because for you the law is absolute, untaintable, especially in the free, democratic USA. I wish it were so.
The possibility exists that Polanski fled because he raped a young girl and the judge was onto him. The possibility also exists that he fled because the legal system became a kangaroo court and he knew the signs better than most. Are you so sure you are right?
Gwen and Grant, Whether the US legal system is flawed or not is beside the point. Roman has a different motive for refusing to attend his trial.
In 1978, having pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse (i.e. statutory rape), the judge agreed to send him ninety days in prison to undergo psychiatric evaluation. He was released after forty two days with a report confirming that he should not serve more jail time. Due to the roaring global media coverage of this event and the public pressure surrounding his reelection run, the judge altered his prior deal and asked him to return to jail for an “undetermined period”, and then deportation. Aware of the judge’s career advancing motives, Roman lost trust and “deported” himself, avoiding further politico-mediatic masquerades at his expense.
In 1993, after reaching a half a million dollar settlement with Samantha Geimer, Roman’s lawyer asked for the courts to dismiss his case. The judge insisted on a trial that would require his presence. Roman was willing to attend until his lawyer informed him that his trial would be televised on CNN (as for O.J. Simpson). To protect his family, he refused to allow their lives to become a globally televised reality show. Despite Samantha’s charges being dropped, the Californian pursuit remained.
Today, partly due to California’s impending bankruptcy, deals have already been negotiated to cover the entire trial live by major broadcasters with huge amounts being dealt behind the scenes. Roman doesn’t…
…refuse to face the US legal system as such. He will be facing a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment. However, he strongly opposes being treated as a puppet in a televised judicial spectacle that will greatly enrich some players and considerably ruin him and his family morally, physically, financially and professionally. Because of his “celebrity” profile, it is clear that he will not be treated fairly.
Taking into consideration that he is 76 years old, how would you react in his situation?
Grant - Polanski was in a position of authority as well as a substantial age difference. Would you find it acceptable for a school teacher to have sex with a pupil of any age? I think a school teacher should be charged with rape even if the pupil is 18 years of age due to power and control exerted. The same goes for Polanski as he was in a position to launch her career and to be able to direct and push her into a situation where he could be alone with her. He sued his position of authority and power to assert dominance over her. This should not even be thought of as statutory rape but just rape. I do not know how many thirteen year girls you know, but the argument that she was worldly or otherwise is a little off putting. One cannot have consensual sex with a thirteen year old when age, power and control are all unequal.
Michael - Once again, this depends on your cultural views. From a biological perspective, what happened was entirely normal and in the animal world nobody would have batted an eyelid.
So we are left with our cultural interpretation. We draw an arbitrary line at 16 in South Africa and say that is the age where a person may decide for themselves whether they engage in sex or not. In other countries with different cultures this age varies from 9 - 18 according to the map I linked to the article. We think we are right. They think they are right. There is no right. There is the general consensus of the meme and it is in flux.
What I can say for certain is that age is the incorrect manner in which to define when a person is allowed to do something. There is a vast variation of maturity levels between people, especially at the younger ages.
Personally I think or rather feel that 13 is very young. I feel its too young for drugs, drink and sex because I don’t think that the AVERAGE 13 year old can handle the responsibility involved with these things. Samantha Geimer, however, had engaged in all three before she had met Polanski. That says that she was not the kind of 13 year old you and I are thinking about. People engage in weird relationships and interactions governed by power play all the time. In general I would say its a bad idea to prejudge.
let’s see if we have all the requisite template excuses here:
Auschwitz, whaargarble, check;
world-aclaimed director, wharrrgarrble, check;
Tate, Manson murder wharrgarble, check;
Rittenbrand did a mean (though legal) thing to Polanski wharrrrrrrrgarble garble garble, check;
People who want a common criminal brought to justice, no matter how great a director he is, are a LYNCH MOB, OMG!!!! WHARRRRRRRRgarble, check.
Yep, you got it covered. Here’s your “Certified Lame Polanski Defense Argument” seal, post it proudly. The chick who played Padme does.
(FYI, your argument is pretty much point-for-point identical to the one in the farce of a petition put out by BHL. Did you really feel such an overpowering need to reiterate a baseless argument?)
“3. The girl had had sex more than once prior to the incident with Polanski (she stated twice). It is not clear with whom and under what circumstances.”
Oh one more thing: we don’t consider non-virgins more acceptable rape victims. Courts pretty much determined this a long time ago as irrelevant evidence” against a victim. Are you really so desperate that you have to take the same kind of cheap shots that even slimy defense lawyers wouldn’t touch with a 10-foot pole? And if this is some attempt to prove something about statutory-ness or whatever, OK, I guess you need it pointed out to you: the girl probably consented to sex with her boyfriend, you see, as opposed to saying NO repeatedly to Polanski. And if she DIDN’t consent to her boyfriend, well, it still doesn’t make what Polanski did any less illegal or immoral.
Julie - You are a stirling example of my point that many lack any kind of objectivity or emotional clarity in this matter and you manage to get personal as well…wharrrrgarble yourself. Thanks for your illuminating comment.
How about you respond, then, Grant? Say something new other than regurgitating all the stale points that have been very successfully refuted again and again? Or would that mean that you’d have to actually look at the possibility that a 13 year-old girl was raped by someone you admire? Have the guts man. Otherwise you are just another mewling apologist.
Oh, and please do respond to your blatant, cowardly blaming of rape victims, owing to their sexual experience, as put forth in your point #3. We’re waiting.
Julie - As a woman and former model, I feel I should interfere here. This case seems so obviously black and white to you. Why do you swallow Samantha’s testimony so easily as if the virgin Mary herself were speaking? It is her word against his, isn’t it? Statutory rape, yes, both admitted to the sex, but forced rape? There is absolutely no evidence. I find it extremely difficult to believe, from experience, that oral sex and anal sex, with absolutely no bleeding or tearing, could be accomplished without consent. Furthermore, I’ve known many ambitious models and their moms, and I know how they operate. Sam and her mom are a text book case. Girls that are sexually active, drink and take drugs at 13 are not the same species as most 13 year old girls. I’ve seen first hand how, due to ignorance and the thirst for fame, they get themselves into bad situations. Of course, they regret it afterwards. That’s when they miraculously change from a ready for anything cock tease into a victim. If she felt she was in so much danger, why did she go on a second photo shoot after the first topless one? Plus,why in God’s name did she years later participate in “Wanted and Desired”? 15 minutes of fame? If you are truly concerned about these type of rape victims, why don’t you put your energy towards exposing what goes on everyday in modeling agencies around…
…the world? It sounds to me like you are just a very angry person who needs to lash out at someone under the guise of “protecting rape victims”. You are not doing Sam any favors. She got her half a million dollars and more than 15 minutes of fame. Her mother, who was a failed actress, was also a failed role model. I had to question your sincerity when you wrote “whaargarble” when referring to the Nazi gas chambers and serial killers that stabbed a pregnant woman 17 times, as if these events had no relevance. Do you honestly have an ounce of sensivity in you or is this all just part of your “I am woman, hear me roar” show? Wake up sister, all woman are not angels just as all men are not predators.
Nicole: “here is absolutely no evidence. I find it extremely difficult to believe, from experience, that oral sex and anal sex, with absolutely no bleeding or tearing, could be accomplished without consent.”
AAAnd, that invalidates just about anything you have to say. What your “being a woman and former model” has to do with validating your irrelevant arguments I do not know.
But sure I’ll address a few things:
“I had to question your sincerity when you wrote “whaargarble” when referring to the Nazi gas chambers and serial killers that stabbed a pregnant woman 17 times, as if these events had no relevance…” Sure, Nicole, All Holocaust/murer survivors should be given a free pass to fuck anyone they want, whether they are willing or not.
“I am woman, hear me roar” show? Wake up sister, all woman are not angels just as all men are not predators.”
One more thing to give you a clue, Nicole: “This case seems so obviously black and white to you. Why do you swallow Samantha’s testimony so easily as if the virgin Mary herself were speaking?”
Being a bit of a drama queen there aren’t you. Anyway, you will see, if you read my arguments, that I was responding to Grant’s rather ridiculous and outmoded way of responding to the charges, that is, though HE has NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE THAT THIS GIRL IS LYING, rather than saying “Hey, maybe there is more to the story than the testimony” and let it be at that, he does, like EVERY Polanski defender has felt a need to, put forth Polanski’s biography (what IS it with that? It smacks of a lot of insecurity about the strength of their argument that they have to resort to emotionally-driven factoids right off the bat) and then launches into the whole “There is no evidence that she was raped, but EVEN IF SHE WAS RAPED SOMEHOW THIS IS HER FAULT FOR HAVING A PRIOR SEXUAL HISTORY.” Oh yeah, did you read Grant’s “The Pope is in My bedroom again” piece? Hilarious. Yeah, Grant, the Pope and government should stay out of people’s sex lives, but you of course should be able to dredge up rape victim’s sexual histories as proof that rape is their fault. Hypocrite.
Julie - I now understand that your comments on this subject have nothing to do with the case but, with your personal vendetta towards Grant. I have not read “The Pope is in My bedroom again” piece and I probably won’t. On the Polanski subject though, I think he gives a very clear and objective view of the facts and possible scenarios, when most people in the media are scared of facing the simple truth that a developed, sexually active, drug taking, almost 14 year old aspiring model is not an innocent child. People have wrongly labeled this guy a pedophile, when that is a very different subject. Pedophiles do not ask their victims if they are taking the pill. This “forced rape” accusation has bothered me endlessly since reading the medical examination, that found absolutely no sign of struggle, bleeding, bruising or even resistance. As I stated before, you’d be shocked by what some girls are ready to do or say when money and fame are at stake. Now that Sam got both, she probably wants this case forgotten for fear that the truth comes out. This is why I believe that her sexual history is relevant. I try to see the flip side, if we were to take Polanski’s word over hers just for a moment, we’d see that his version has less holes in it. He made a big mistake by going along with the “fun”, because he should have known better…
…This is when his non-American background comes in, his culture allows consensual sex with younger girls and, his lack of good judgement could also be attributed to the horrors he was trying to forget. The actual sex, according to medical records, seemed very gentle (some married couples get more bruised than that during intercourse), plus he cared about giving her pleasure (oral sex). This and her track record makes it impossible for me to believe that she didn’t consent. This guy is almost 80 years old, rotting in jail and unfairly being labeled a child sex predator. It seems like people are getting out all their own sexual frustration, hate and jealousy for the “rich and famous” and/or anger towards men in general, on this guy, in the name of protecting children. It’s ridiculous. Grant’s article states the need for objectivity and the close study of the circumstances in this case. It seems that society is the real “hypocrite”, when we can no longer speak honestly about teenage sexuality and the sick reality that lies behind the glamour.
By the non-drama queen.
I’d like to add, Nicole, that your “being a woman and a former model” does not automatically add legitimacy to your argument or make you any kind of authority as you seem to think it does. Comments of yours such as “I find it extremely difficult to believe, from experience, that oral sex and anal sex, with absolutely no bleeding or tearing, could be accomplished without consent.” (It can happen when you are drugged and unable to fight back, or just if you are too scared to fight back, Just an FYI)and “Girls that are sexually active, drink and take drugs at 13 are not the same species as most 13 year old girls.” (Yes, they make much better targets for rape in your opinion, right, Nicole?)do absolutely nothing to make readers think that you are sincere about getting to the truth of matters. You make your points as though they are relevant to everyone else’s lives (”I was a model and I know about stage mothers and cock teases, etc.”)Well, good for you. You still have not one iota of facts to support your commentary. You’ve convinced me of nothing.
“There are however some other facts not commonly cited or noted BY THE MOB:” (ephasis mine.)
Make your bias a little more clear there why don’t you. If you want to argue the possibility that Polanski did not rape her (we already know the statutory part) fine, because I’ve seen some compelling arguments out there. None of them have this insecure need to narrate a mini-doc on Polanski’s life before laying out the argument. This all reads like some backdoor way around the issues, and Mr. Walliser quite clumsily made the real machinations driving his argument rather clear: All of this scrutinising the behavior of a 13 year-old girl as though you are a forensic psychologist is just so much bottom-of-the-barrel scraping. Should have stuck with the legal aspects of the premise that Polanski may not be getting fair shakes here. Sorry, this just does not convince me to believe that Polanski should not be taken to task for his actions. You can say the mother was irresponsible, the girl willingly took drugs (becaus ea lot of 13 year-olds do stupid stuff that adults should know better than to do)but the bottom line is Polanski did something horrible and illegal, then decided he really did not care to own up to it. As to his payments to Geimer, that is a civil matter. What is going on now is a state matter. Separate issue altogether.
It’s amazing how sexually frustrated and blood thirsty you all are. You bring no new ideas or evidence what so ever but, must result to personal attacks. Sam wasn’t too drugged to so called remember every detail or, to speak to Angelica Huston just after. Huston testified that Sam did not look scared.
I am glad to have succeeded in provoking your thoughts. Seek help and don’t forget; “Veritas numquam perit. Veritas odit moras. Veritas vincit”.
Nicole, read stuff before responding. Calling Grant out on absurdity (and yes, whatever your take in this matter, pointing to a rape victim’s sexual history to exonerate a rapist is patently absurd) does not qualify as a vendetta. Methinks you are getting as hysterical as you accuse me of being.
Let’s look at your comments now:
–”Sexually frustrated and Bloodthirsty” Nope, not hysterical there.
–”It seems that society is the real “hypocrite”, when we can no longer speak honestly about teenage sexuality and the sick reality that lies behind the glamour.”
I agree! Wow imagine that! But part of that, nicole, involves looking at the opportunity for predation and exploitation involved in that, to which too many predators say “Look at her! You expect ME to be a rational adult and not have sex with her even though she told me no repeatedly?”
“This and her track record makes it impossible for me to believe that she didn’t consent”
Oh, her being a non-virgin again? I think I’ve covered that but I’ll repeat: This is not admissible excuse for someone drugging her into submission and raping her.
Seriously, read my comments again and tell me that your response to them is appropriate. With a straight face.
But rationality seems to roll off your skin as well. Now, go on and reach for an easy way out of responding with some unimaginative invective about bloodthirst or what haveyou.
Grant: Yes, this is the Mob that you are so threatened by that you have to dismiss as calling a Mob: Rational people responding rather rationally as can be to people tapdancing around basic morality to reason that Polanski’s art is more important than children’s safety. Now, can you please explain why you think it’s appropriate for the defense counsel to call up a rape victim’s sexual history? And please don’t tell me you are not responding to my question because I am not “bringing up anything new for you to respond to.”
“Truth never perishes, truth hates delay.” Nicole, that is the most appropriate thing you’ve said yet. So, let’s not delay truth for more than 34 years now.
Julie - Well, for starters, lets stop calling her the rape victim until we know that she was in fact raped. I would argue that the sexual history of a woman CLAIMING rape is of paramount importance. Should one delve into this history and find that she had claimed rape unsucessfully 27 times before one would be less likely to convict, not so? One may assume that she makes a career out of it. Sexual history is extremely relevant in rape cases.
Examples for you in this category include the Zuma trial and Makhaya Ntini. The Zuma rape accused had claimed rape a few times prior to her liason with Zuma and hence her credibility was damaged.
In the Polanski case, your child had had sex at least twice before as a minor. Where were the calls for these men to be arrested? Why is their crime lesser than Polaski’s on that count?
In addition, Nicole makes good points on details of the actual incident. There are enough inconsistencies to doubt that the girl was raped completely against her will. Do the math. Why that happened I can’t say. I postulated some possibilities and there are others.
I am exploring the other side here and I urge you to do the same. Calling her a rape victim tells me you have convicted Polanksi long ago. I therefore think that unless you change this stance and try to be objective, this discussion is clearly over.
Grant, please come up with a better alter ego than a former model I jest of course. But really, your arguments are almost exact replicas of one another’s. I won’t even go into it all because their baseness speaks for itself (all 13 year-old models are cockteases as N asserts, and so Geiner must have been one, etc.), but let’s just get one thing settled once and for all. No one gets away with telling a judge that the girl had sex before, or is a cocktease, so she deserved to be raped. No one. So, Grant/Nicole or should I call you Gricole, you can keep saying things like “but but, she had sex before!” The judge will say “irrelevant.” Than you can come at it another way by saying “but but she has a history of having sex with older men” and the judge will tell you “irrelevant.” Do you get it? No matter how you phrase it, you will forever be butting your heads against that truth, that it is not legal (or conscionable) to blame rape on someone for any reason, especially by bringing up their previous sex lives. So let’s make it easier on everyone and strike that from teh argument because it is pointless to bring it up and pointless to respond to it because it’s a bunk point
Wait a minute, how did I miss this little gem from “Nicole”: “The actual sex, according to medical records, seemed very gentle (some married couples get more bruised than that during intercourse), plus he cared about giving her pleasure (oral sex).”
Revolting. That’s all that need be said about this little “kinder gentler rape” argument. Besides it being obviously really really desperate.
GrantJulie -”Well, for starters, lets stop calling her the rape victim” It doesn’t matter. Your comments about sexual history apply to rape victims in general.
“Should one delve into this history and find that she had claimed rape unsucessfully 27 times before one would be less likely to convict, not so” Again, irrelevant. You look into her criminal complaints, not her sexual history. Good try. And you just keep trying, don’t you?
“n the Polanski case, your child had had sex at least twice before as a minor. Where were the calls for these men to be arrested? Why is their crime lesser than Polanski’s on that count?”
Because she did not bring charges, and there is a likelihood she consented. With POlanski, she claims to not have consented, so charges are brought. Quite basic really.
“In addition, Nicole makes good points on details of the actual incident. There are enough inconsistencies to doubt that the girl was raped completely against her will.” I can’t really comment on a point that brings up a phrase like ‘wasn’t raped completely against her will.’ You see, you make your willful denial very very clear.
“I am exploring the other side here and I urge you to do the same. ‘ Nope, you are trying every trick possible to reason away rape. That is evident in every comment I just responded to. You just do it under the guise of “objectivity.”
Grant (continued)”Calling her a rape victim tells me you have convicted Polanksi long ago.” I never called her a rape victim. I responded to the points you brought up in which she claims to be a rape victim, to which you waved off rape victim’s rights to privacy.
Grant, let me just call a spade a spade here. Your weasily way of trying to find absolutely any empty logic to blame rape victims, the statements you’ve made about how it would be such a loss for Polanski to be jailed…and NOTHING about how, if he raped her-a distinct possibility that you just don’t want to admit to- he deserves punishment (yep, you’re being really objective there, Grant)and your, as one poster has said,bottom-of-the-barrel-scraping reasoning: kinder gentler rape, she didn’t “cry out” or indicate to anyone at the time that she was being raped, (because there is a standard button in every household that can be pressed in event of rape, right? And of course, YOU would know EXACTLY how to respond to being a raped, wouldn’t you?) is all sick. OK? It’s SICK. Luckily mentality like this which belongs somewhere in the 17th century is on the steep decline in the West. I’m not worried. Because the mentality relies on the kind of weak reasoning that you’ve put forth, and can only cease to exist more and more every day.
Oh wow, I just found some choice comments from Grant from another thread that really take this blog to the next level:
Phillipa - hypothetically, me denying being a rapist is about equivalent to you denying the fact that you are a lying, seductive slut engaged in life for greedy material gain. Both happen more often than we would like to believe.I suggest that if I labelled you, you would be equally keen to deny it…unless you are guilty of course wink.”
Wow. Your no-hold-barred misogyny and bitterness is breathtaking, Grant. For anyone still reading, this was in response to a comment in which Phillipa only cited the stats in the article. The stats said 1 in 4 men have raped. She did NOT extend this to say that all men rape, as Grant conveniently interpreted.
More from Grant:
“She takes her sophisticated, non-virginal, drug-taking daughter and explains that she should go with this guy and do what he wants wink-wink and they will be rich beyond her dreams. Silly girl does this, lies about her age”
Well, I’m further enlightened about Grant’s real mission here. (To explore the other side of the issue, yep. That’s his story and he’s sticking to it.) Grant, you need serious serious help with your issues.
Grant, you’ve been fervently arguing that “13 year old girls who drink and have sex are a different species.” Your bringing up their sexual lives has nothing to do with the possibility that they are falsely reporting rape adn you know that. Please don’t try to change your premise into being something else now. Your comments are on permanent record. Gotta Love the internet.
Julie - Let it go now, the debate is over. You have ceased making sense, you are emotional, militant and irrational. Your smiley barely hides that fact at all. I can therefore suggest one last redeeming exercise for you to try an put yourself into my shoes and understand the RIGHT that someone has to being assumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. How would you as a defense attourney defend Polanski…and spare me the moral bullshit in which you decline to ever defend someone like him. Assume you have to and also assume that the scenario you are clinging to in your stubborn head may in fact be wrong.
Yes, Julie, he might actually be innocent.
Sure its a long shot but if you are unable to do that exercise then you are unfit to comment and unfit to judge.
Contrary to your assertions I have looked at both sides. On the one side I see Polanski the sick rapist BUT on the other I found things that made me wonder about the innocent victim. They are all detailed above.
I also stated my case on what I think about rape. What I may not have stated is what I think about women who cry rape on innocent men. I think a woman who can cry rape when it was not rape and send a man to prison is as bad as the rapist himself. Rape and false rape accusation
are equally bad in my book. Both violate the freedom of individuals.
I just ordered Phillip Lambro’s “Close Encounters of the Worst Kind” (2007), (Polanski hired him for original Chinatown (1974) music score), and Phillip says, “When I witnessed him answering sex-for-sale ads from fifteen year old girls under the name of Paul while he was working in the Paramount editing room, we must deduce that his judgment was amiss.” http://www.pr-inside.com/new-book-exposes-roman-polanski-s-sexual-r1599034.htm
This was 3 years before Samantha’s ‘photo shoot’, which Vogue Homme told INTERPOL they had not commissioned a ’spread’ of adolescent girls for their magazine. Roman was taking topless pictures of a 13yo for a non-existent pictorial, kind of a waste of his talent I’d say.
Roman’s autobiography “ROMAN BY POLANSKI” (1984) is his worst nightmare. As long as he stayed quiet his appologists could spin all kinds of conjecture. I’ve been reading to see how well he could explain himself when given 7 years and a litany of lawyers to review it before publication. One thing is obvious, Samanthas’s version is simple and doesn’t require footnotes to explain, and she is brutally honest whereas Roman’s version requires some rather convoluted scenarios in order to make sense, and silly Roman goes about detailing these one by one. I’m documenting the ‘holes’ in his story that when filled leave you with a definite reason to doubt . . . ‘Reasonable Doubt’ you might say.
Max, If I were you, I would immediately cancel my order of Phillip Lambro’s book. It is sad to witness that a music composer has to gossip about Roman with false accusations in order to sell his book.
I remind you that, in the July 2002 edition of Vanity Fair, an article was printed alleging that Roman seduced a “Swedish beauty” on his way to Tate’s funeral by claiming he could make her “another Sharon Tate”. Roman sued the magazine and won.
Mr Lambro will also be sued and again, Roman will win.
Logically speaking, with the prestige that Roman enjoyed during this period, he didn’t need to answer sex-for-sales ads from young girls or “rape” anyone as a matter of fact. These are simply lies for the sake of selling books and papers.
Grant:
“Julie - Let it go now, the debate is over. You have ceased making sense, you are emotional, militant and irrational. ”
You keep saying that. (WHO is the one who can’t let it go, Grant? Just me, right?) And then go on to say this: “Your smiley barely hides that fact at all. .. How would you as a defense attourney defend Polanski…and spare me the moral bullshit in which you decline to ever defend someone like him. Assume you have to and also assume that the scenario you are clinging to in your stubborn head may in fact be wrong.”
Calling em Militant and irrational, eh? Interesting… PROJECTION, shall we say? It’s obviously a way of dismissing arguments you don’t want to have to address, it’s clear to everyone reading this, Grant.
“On the one side I see Polanski the sick rapist ”
Throwing out things like “Now, rape is a hideous crime and if he did that then he should be punished” and then proceeding to argue that even if Geimer was raped it was still not so much Polanski’s fault because the mother was a stage mother, Geimer had had sex already, had taken drugs before, the sex was “gentle,” oh yes, and whatever you were saying about “she consented to rape just a little bit maybe” etc. don’t count. ANYONE can say “rape is bad and if he was guilty of it then he should be punished.” That takes no thought.
Grant (continued) “I think a woman who can cry rape when it was not rape and send a man to prison is as bad as the rapist himself. Rape and false rape accusation are equally bad in my book.”
That we can agree on. But I can’t really get all Kumbayah with you when you are so adamant about nitpicking how Geimer “brought this on herself” and lessening Polanski’s responsibility as an adult to not take advantage of girls. Instead of putting forth an argument about Polanski’s potential innocence as a rapist, you have reasoned away why rape is not really such a big deal, and should even be expected with certain 13 year-old girls who drink and have had sex. I’ll keep saying it until you see that.
I HAVE looked at the other side of this debate, despite what you think. I just have not put forth my conjectures that side of the issue because I’ve spent my time trying to right you on things like how you cannot call up a rape victim’s sexual history (no, I’m not talking about Geimer as a victim necessarily, just rape victims in general to which this ideology applies.)
This leads me to conclude that this issue is not about justice for you. It is about you seeing this as evidence of how “slutty girls” and women take advantage of men and make them do bad things.
Grant (continued): and please read that last part and think on it: “Geimer made Polanski do a bad thing to her” “Geimer’s mother threw her daughter at Polanski and encouraged him to molest her” encompasses your argument. And it is ridiculous how you persuade yourself into thinking that personal responsibility (which you keep saying Geimer should have had) does not apply to Polanski.
Grant is calling Julie “Militatn and Irrational.” You had to expect the “feminazi” accusations, Julie, you just knew they were coming didn’t you? You should at least congratulate Grant on not stooping so low as to saying something like “that time of the month huh” in response to your comments. In some circles the argument is thus:
“She said no and he had sex with her anyway so he raped her” ….”FEMINAZI!!!”
“You can’t blame a girl for having sex or call her a slut” ……”FEMINAZI!!!”
which is roughly the kins of sentiment I see here. Seems Grant is mistaking “tenaciousness” for “militant” and “calling someone out repeatedly on the same bullshit” as “irrational.” I noticed that’s the second time he used that phrase verbatim in this debate. Not much for originality, or non-glib ways of dismissing things he doesn’t want to hear.
@ Max– “Then I witnessed him answering sex-for-sale ads from fifteen year old girls under the name of Paul while he was working in the Paramount editing room, we must deduce that his judgment was amiss.” But you forget Polanski was going through a “dark patch” in his life. According to grant stalking girls for sex is an acceptable form of self-therapy.
@ Tonton “Logically speaking, with the prestige that Roman enjoyed during this period, he didn’t need to answer sex-for-sales ads from young girls or “rape” anyone as a matter of fact.”
Could be that he jsut wanted to. FYI rape is committed by many people who “don’t have to.” There is something called “sociopathy.” read up on it.
I’m just saying one more thing and then I’m out of this train wreck of a thread– I don’t really want to keep upping the comment count on it and make people think Grant must be a really great blogger or something. He said something about posters getting emotional and irrational. Well, healthy anger can only be expected in confronting someone who is arguing that it’s just logical that Geiner (and girls like her) would be molested, after all she was not a virgin and she willingly took the champagne, etc. That it’s just logical that a man with a violent history cannot be held accountable for his actions. (and hey, where are all the petitions the Hollywood elite are putting together for Joe Shmoe serving time in the fed for rape? They make it sound like fronting for accused rapists is their new pet cause. ) Healthy anger is actually a pretty rational response to someone with a worldview that it’s the, how did you say it, Grant?’ Oh yeah, “lying, seductive slut engaged in life for greedy material gain” like a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL that are tearing men asunder in this world. And then proceed to run away from people making legit comments on his blog, going behind some line in the sand and saying “I don’t have to respond to militant irrational people, nyah!” Why are you even blogging, then Grant.
Jamie M and Julie - I will rest my case by referring you two to comments above that were against my article but were rational, logical and thought provoking. If you really want to, you can spend the weekend trying to decipher the difference between their comments and your comments and discover why I never accused them of the same barking emotional irrationality.
Anger in debate is a weakness that clouds clear and factual thought and is the catalyst that draws the line for two camps to form. While anger and outrage may be appealing and comforting to you and your need to be righteous and just, I find it base and inconsistent with formulating a cogent stance. Hence my constant assertion that to judge you need to calmy and openly look at both sides of the debate which you have not managed to demonstrate.
The valued contributions were:
Gwen, William Smith, Trish and Paul. All of them looked at facts, contested my thinking and generally did not play the man but played the ball. They played hard for thier side and made some very good points. I appreciated all of their input.
Grant,
“While anger and outrage may be appealing and comforting to you and your need to be righteous and just,”
your finger-wagging is hilarious.
“Anger in debate is a weakness that clouds clear and factual thought”
Hilarious. “Militant,” “Irrational” “Sexually frustrated” “Bloodthirsty mob.” “you are a lying, seductive slut engaged in life for greedy material gain. .”
Your words, Grant, not mine.
And they were made in an obvious evasion of rational points and facts that you didn’t want to listen to because you knew they were right. I KNOW that you know deep down that your flustered and confused and self-serving thinking about personal responsibility, your sycophancy about Polanski, and backward ideas about rape, are terribly wrongheaded. So, I believe there is hope for you yet.
Oh yeah, Grant, quite interesting how you can deduce anger from my comments. I think you might be getting definitions confused again. “Responding to Grant’s commentary” does not equate with “anger.” It’s just responding to your comments. I know you hate that I kept calling you out on stuff, and you got angry about it because I wouldn’t let you get away with such stuff, but let’s not project the way you choose to react on to other people. That’s kinda what Polanski did.
Wow, getting back to this thread, I have to say I am appalled.
Grant, I see only well-reasoned and eloquent responses to your coments. I see none of this anger or militancy (ruggedness, perhaps) you talk about. And if you think militancy means holding to your opinions then you are very guilty of the same. Everyone has quoted you directly to make their points. You name-call in response. I honestly don’t think you’ve even read the arguments of the posters you are calling militant and angry. Seems you just throw out insults to get intelligent posters off your trail. Indeed, why are you even blogging then, perhaps this is really just propagandizing. Really, in my opinion you’ve degraded ourself to a little boy who stamps his feet and covers his ears. (And thanking the opposing voices who gave up on this debate and to whom you’ve have the last word hardly counts as good sportsmanship.)
Just my observations.
Julie, I know you won’t get a thankyou from grant, and you probably don’t care, but I’ll say it– thank-you for the good arguments. I still don’t know wat to think about Polanski, but your points really are compelling…… and rational,(unlike what you’ve been accused of by the host, ha ha.)
….I’d like to say one more thing abot this self-responsibility issue… grant argues something like: the mother tossed her daughter at him in some quest for fame (not an argument that has been or can be substatntiated, but grant sees it as fact) and so she is as much to blame for Polansi’s molestation of her. What would become of me if I were to, say, go into a store and rip off a CD player that did not have an alarm tag on it? Do I say: well yes I’m a thief and I what I did was illegal, but it’s equally the store’s fault that I stole it because they did not put the alarm tag on it?
But people will do any kind of song and dance of logic when they are so certain they are right I guess.
This thread was getting very interesting until THE MOB (ie. Julie/Jamie) decided to step in and repeat herself like a broken record (25 comments in a monogue format).
What a shame !
Grant, after this sabotage, I think instead of calling your next blogue “Kangaroo courts part 2″, you should call it “When Mobs Enter”.
Hey grant, from the posts I’ve seen here, I think it can safely be deduced that julie has won this. If i were you I’d just scrap this whole blog thread and move on to another subject. Your posts are kind of embarassing to read.
“John”– and yet, julie put forth many eloquent things in her 25 posts. You have only flippantly ranted about “THE MOB” as grant did repeatedly whenever he wanted a cheap way out of discussion. yeah, just call them THE MOB and that’ll show ‘em!
Michael Murphy: Sorry for missing your post until now. Thank YOU, and I completely agree with the point you bring up about personal responsibility. I think that is really what has been missed in this argument.
No matter, Rittenbrand is a better name for the Santa Monica Judge since he unfairly branded Roman Polanski a rapist to People magazine in 1977, before Polanski’s trial by saying “and this doesn’t look like anything other than a routine rape case to me.”
So here’s the Santa Monica Judge blabbing off his mouth to the press branding Polanski a rapist, in advance of Polanski’s trial, which trial never happened, and the only conviction that Polanski ever received in the Santa Monica Courthouse was for consensual sex with a minor!
Roman Polanski like everyone else in America is innocent until proven guilty.
So the Judge on Polanski’s case acted with prejudice against Polanski by giving his decision in advance to the press before the trial ever took place, and the trial never did take place, because of the plea bargain agreement.
Even today the press keep using the word rape, which is inflammatory and is a defamation of Roman Polanski’s character, since that charge was thrown out.
Also Polanski was prejudged, unfairly & publicly branded by this Santa Monica Judge Rittenband,
just as another victim from same Santa Monica Courthouse has been unfairly publicly stigmatized for reporting official abuse of power that included being sexually molested by a teacher in a California College with the College Police covering up the complaint,
and then assaulted and battered in a Santa Monica Courtroom in front of the Judge by undocumented white County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputies (the Judge has since been promoted to the California Court of Appeals 2nd District),
which stigmatization the 9th Circuit U.S. Federal Court of Appeals affirmed in their unpublished decision of 25th June, 2001.
Two people unfairly branded by Judges which Judicial abuse first emanated out of the very same Santa Monica Courthouse equals abuse of Official power, discrimination, a double standard in sexual assault cases where the scales of justice are predetermined to swing your way by California ’s Judges if you happened to be employed by California, but not if you were born in Europe.
Grant is right - Kangaroo Courts are alive and well in California
The corrupt Los Angeles District Attorney’s office needs to finally own up to their foolishness and ineptitude in regards to Roman Polanski’s case (and many other) cases such as this one
The case was settled. The publicity-hungry judge was pressured and cajoled by a member of the DAs office to reject the settlement and impose a much harsher sentence. That former DA now claims he was lying about his conversations with the judge (uh, okay…). The case is tainted. It’s over. All this is just more chest-thumping political theatrics. Why do we always have idiots for District Attorneys in Los Angeles?
WB said.”Do you really think Polanski’s arrest emanated from the Los Angeles district attorney’s office?”
No the first call may have come from higher up because the movie “The Ghost Writer” speaks of Official connections to war crimes, and this possibly could have hit an Official sore spot.
And talking of war crimes would you rather be oppressed by being a prisoner in Abu Ghraib,
or by being a young girl in Roman Polanski’s hot tub, which may have been a consensual affair, and thus not true oppression,
or would you rather be oppressed by being assaulted and battered in a Santa Monica Courtroom California by a number of undocumented white County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputies and the African American Police Officer defendant in front of the County of Los Angeles Judge, who is now a California Justice, in the very same Santa Monica Courthouse as Roman Polanski.
for reporting Santa Monica College Officials and their police cover up of sexual assault complaint against a California employed photography instructor that occurred from behind in his color printing darkroom class.
Bottom line - the amount of oppression that Roman Polanski could bring is rather minor in comparison to the Abuse of Power and Oppression Officials en masse do create under color of law,
or Officials create through ratifying the “Torture Memos” which then enables Officials to eviscerate people’s civil rights, regardless of whether that torture occurs behind closed doors at the Santa Monica Courthouse, California, or abroad.
Santa Monica California Courthouse exploits sex cases where foreign born people are not treated equally, so discrimination and racism and unequal treatment occur.
Because of Santa Monica judicial, prosecutorial and police corruption with staged hearings involving police brutality which results in physical harm and trauma to the victims
and results in promotion for the Judges to the California Court of Appeal 2nd District
and promotion for Jay S Bybee for signing the Torture Memos to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals with the nomination by US President Bush
The corruption, and torture connects quite perfectly.
Issue: Roman Polanski should be released as soon as possible
Message Sent 4/9/ 2010
I stress the Swiss Justice should look very closely at the fact that there are multiple claims of Judicial Corruption at the Santa Monica Courthouse California, which are comig from other sources other than Roman Polanski.
Thus the Swiss Federal Office of Justice should take these other instances of Judicial & police Corruption into consideration and release Roman Polanski as soon as possible, since the California Justice system is not trustworthy.
There are witnesses to a double standard being applied in California’s Courts, and that sexual molestation cases are being exploited by the California authorities, depending on who is involved. The bias seems to go against those born in other countries. And the police and Judges will cover up sexual assault by employees at California’s Colleges and assault and batter the victims of sexual molestation.
The first appearance of Polanski in Switzerland is at a Jazz Festival where his wife Emmanuelle Seigner is singing music from Rosemary’s Baby!
Coincidence? No!
It took Swiss Justice to say NO to the devil of injustice that lives on in the Santa Monica, courtroom, assisted by Federal Court Judges, Magistrates, including those who ratified the Torture Memos,
which means that sexual assault victims who have been re-victimized by police assault and battery, and Santa Monica Judges covering up, are then victimized again by Federal Judges with Pony show decisions, using bait and switch justice, over 12 years to continue the torture.
33 years later thanks to Swiss Justice, Polanski was rescued, when American justice failed.
In refusing to extradite Polanski, and by not pandering to California’s DOUBLE STANDARD, Swiss Justice also assisted sexual assault victims in California
A Santa Monica Judge permitted bait and switch justice and police thuggery in his Courtroom that injured a sexual assault victim,
in Roman Polanski’s case bait and switch justice was used also to break the plea bargain agreement.
Can you see the devil yet? It is the unreliable American Justice in the next room, who wants to suck the life from you, using bait and switch justice.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
The human brain is made of atoms. Atoms consist primarily of empty space. It is fair to say, therefore, that my head is basically empty. That will please those of you who disagree with what I say until it dawns on you that your head is empty too.
So, based on the undeniable fact that our heads are fundamentally comprised of emptiness, is anything we think or say of any real value?
Probably not.
Remember that next time you are fuming at some point of view contrary to your own.
The recent fracas surrounding Zapiro's drawing of the Prophet Muhammad has predictably culminated in the usual death threats from irate Muslims. Both ...
Being a South African over the past few weeks has been a turbulent experience. The excitement of the looming Fifa World Cup has been tempered by a deg...
In March of 1991 after months of nationalistic propaganda and other divisive rhetoric from Slobodan Milosevic and Franjo Tudjman, a small group of Ser...
The name Zanu-PF used to be synonymous with liberation as was the ANC. It used to stand for the high ideals of fighting oppression at great cost to th...
Government, it seems, wants to control our access to porn on DSTV. Thank goodness we have them to look out for us. We are clearly not capable of makin...
Loading ...
Congradulations to the writer !
This article is the only one which is concise and precise at the same time. Finally, one intelligent reporter…
(Report abuse)