Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 3:29 PM
Sat Nov 28
12 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/01/09
10/01/09
This is a complicated and sordid enough matter without an ignorant blogger's pageview hunger making it worse by spreading misinformation.
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
She was 13.
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
I don't care what the then 13 year old want's now, society, rightfully so, says an ADULT that does this is guilty of a heinous crime.
He deserved YEARS in jail then, he deserves YEARS for the original crime, plus YEARS for fleeing.
Hope they throw the book at him.
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
Seriously there was an amazingly balanced documentary on this subject. It changed my opinion on this subject, and gave a clear understanding of all of the facts in this case.
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
[www.thesmokinggun.com]
Why defend him?
09/27/09
And forming my opinions based on a biased review and a police report are supposed to make me more informed?
The facts of the case are public record. I have read them, nauseating as they are. I am not a big fan of Mr Polanski.
I also believe in the statute of limitations, and not a big believer in lex talionis.
Sorry if that means from time to time I am on the wrong side of an angry group of honking geese that have read a 30 year old police report and want to sharpen some pitchforks.
And before you start talking about "flight from prosecution" just stop.
09/27/09
09/27/09
"The Los Angeles Times"
Sunday, February 23, 2003
Judge the Movie, Not the Man
Roman Polanski's 25-year-old crimes should not damage his chances for an
Oscar, his victim says
By Samantha Geimer
I met Roman Polanski in 1977, when I was 13 years old. I was in ninth grade that year, when he told my mother that he wanted to shoot pictures of me for a French magazine. That's what he said, but instead, after shooting pictures of me at Jack Nicholson's house on Mulholland Drive, he did something quite different. He gave me champagne and a piece of a
Quaalude. And then he took advantage of me.
It was not consensual sex by any means. I said no, repeatedly, but he wouldn't take no for an answer. I was alone and I didn't know what to do. It was scary and, looking back, very creepy. Those may sound like kindergarten words, but that's the way it feels to me. It was a very long time ago, and it is hard to remember exactly the way everything happened. But I've had to repeat the story so many times, I know it by heart.
We pressed charges, and he pleaded guilty. A plea bargain was agreed to
by his lawyer, my lawyer and the district attorney, and it was approved by the judge. But to our amazement, at the last minute the judge went back on his word and refused to honor the deal.
Worried that he was going to have to spend 50 years in prison -- rather
than just time already served -- Mr. Polanski fled the country. He's never been back, and I haven't seen him or spoken to him since.
Looking back, there can be no question that he did something awful. It was a terrible thing to do to a young girl. But it was also 25 years ago -- 26 years next month. And, honestly, the publicity surrounding it was so traumatic that what he did to me seemed to pale in comparison.
Now that he's been nominated for an Academy Award, it's all being reopened. I'm being asked: Should he be given the award? Should he be rewarded for his behavior? Should he be allowed back into the United States after fleeing 25 years ago?
Here's the way I feel about it: I don't really have any hard feelings toward him, or any sympathy, either. He is a stranger to me.
But I believe that Mr. Polanski and his film should be honored according to the quality of the work. What he does for a living and how good he is at it have nothing to do with me or what he did to me. I don't think it would be fair to take past events into consideration. I think that the academy members should vote for the movies they feel deserve it. Not for
people they feel are popular.
And should he come back? I have to imagine he would rather not be a fugitive and be able to travel freely. Personally, I would like to see that happen. He never should have been put in the position that led him to flee. He should have received a sentence of time served 25 years ago,
just as we all agreed. At that time, my lawyer, Lawrence Silver, wrote to the judge that the plea agreement should be accepted and that that guilty plea would be sufficient contrition to satisfy us. I have not changed my mind.
I know there is a price to pay for running. But who wouldn't think about running when facing a 50-year sentence from a judge who was clearly more interested in his own reputation than a fair judgment or even the well-being of the victim?
If he could resolve his problems, I'd be happy. I hope that would mean I'd never have to talk about this again. Sometimes I feel like we both got a life sentence.
My attitude surprises many people. That's because they didn't go through it all; they don't know everything that I know. People don't understand that the judge went back on his word. They don't know how unfairly we were all treated by the press. Talk about feeling violated! The media
made that year a living hell, and I've been trying to put it behind me ever since.
Today, I am very happy with my life. I have three sons and a husband. I live in a beautiful place and I enjoy my work. What more could I ask for? No one needs to worry about me.
The one thing that bothers me is that what happened to me in 1977 continues to happen to girls every day, yet people are interested in me because Mr. Polanski is a celebrity. That just never seems right to me. It makes me feel guilty that this attention is directed at me, when
there are certainly others out there who could really use it.
*Editor's note: The Times' usual practice is not to name victims of sexual crimes. Samantha Geimer's name is used here with her consent.
Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
09/27/09
However, that doesn't change the fact that he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, admitted to it, and bolted rather than take his punishment.
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
Even if after 40 years the victim has moved passed that, the fact here is that an adult committed this anal rape, and was able to run away and has supported like you just because of his celebrity status.
If it was a guy who lived in a trailer park, you'd want him in jail. Of if the victim was someone you knew, like your daughter.
If Polanski was going to serve an unjustly harsh sentence, that was something to be dealt with separately, afterward.
09/27/09
09/27/09
That isn't the issue, and it never has been.
The issue is the sentencing. A person doesn't plea to a lesser charge and then flee without there being a good reason for it.
I know it's difficult to accept, but in order for our justice system to work, BOTH sides need to honor the agreements in place. If the prosecution and the state change the agreement after a person has plead to a crime, it is a breach of contract.
That is what I am defending.
In order for our justice system to work, it needs to work for everybody. In some cases it means acknowledging that we fucked up trying to prosecute a celebrity, and not trying to change the rules to suit the mob.
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
From my understanding, Polanski's lawyers had a plea bargain agreement, and the judge reneged on it. This is the reason he fled. Give me your insight on how I am wrong.
Or are you of the opinion that we should treat plea bargain agreements differently depending on the crime committed?
Oh, also, I'm not 17, world-weary, a libertarian, or a troll. It's perfectly acceptable if you don't agree with me, but you don't have to throw out adjectives waiting for one to be conceived as an insult.
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
It turns out that this case may have been the precedent for how plea bargains are explained to defendants now.
Before Roman Polanski, prosecutors would claim that they had authority to make the agreements and that having the judge sign off on it was simply procedural.
Now prosecutors have to explain that they are only making offers, subject to Judicial approval.
It may sound semantic, but it would explain why someone with the money Polanski had would plea bargain in the first place.
09/27/09
And guess what? Everyone who commits a crime has to take that risk but unlike Polanski they don't have the means or financial ability to run to Europe. He should have stayed and served his time like a man.
09/27/09
09/27/09
I am of the opinion that continuing to go after a man for a case that even the victim is trying to have thrown out serves nobody. I am not saying the crime is victimless, however punishing him is meaningless. There is no justice being served. Everything else is just emotion and posturing.
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
Otherwise you sound as informed as your opinion is.
09/27/09
He deserves to be punished, plain and simple. Even if all they do is recognize the deal to which he pled guilty.
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
However, given that he raped a girl, he has to be held accountable for his crime. I guess maybe the ideal outcome would be that a mistrial was declared based on any misconduct by the judge in the orginal trial, if there was any misconduct. If no misconduct, hopefully a sentence, but a lenient one considering the wishes of the victim and considering his (presumably) crime-free life since, and his contributions as an artist.
09/27/09
I'd say the perversion being perpetrated here isn't Polanski's...
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
My apologies if I sounded glib about the underlying crime...
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
It's nice to know that just as Madoff was kicking his Ponzi scheme into high gear and Wall Street was kicking their CDS fiesta into hyperdrive, in 2005, the US Justice Department had the time, focus and inclination to renew a decades-old arrest warrant.
Reminiscent of the Bin Laden Determined to Strike the US memo that was ignored so drapes could be fitted over Lady Justice's statue.
Not to say that Roman's US exile should have been lifted, but the GOP's sense of priorities are laughably obtuse and misdirected.
09/27/09