BBC: Polanski victim seeks dismissal

[Heidi]

Page last updated at 22:49 GMT, Monday, 26 October 2009

The victim of the sexual assault committed by Roman Polanski has called for charges against the film director to be dismissed, court documents show.

Lawyers for Samantha Geimer, who was 13 when Polanski had sex with her in 1977, urged a dismissal in a motion filed at a California appeals court on Friday.

She had suffered health problems after being hounded by the media following Polanski's arrest last month, it said.

The director is currently being held in Switzerland on a US arrest warrant.

<snip>

The papers filed on behalf of Ms Geimer, who lives in Hawaii, ask judges at California's 2nd District Court of Appeal to rule on a previous motion to dismiss the charges against Polanski.

Claiming that Polanski had been forced to flee by a "corrupt" judge, they state: "No matter what his crime, Polanski was entitled to be treated fairly; he was not."

They also complain that Ms Geimer is being stalked by journalists from news outlets and talk show producers, and that she and her lawyer had received nearly 500 telephone calls in a month.

Read more

[Vidar]

1. Obviously our 40 year old witch hunt is more important than the victim.

[trumad]

2. Drug a 13 year old and fuck her in the ass....

but that seems to be OK with you?

Oh and just 45 days for the crime---but that's OK with you as well?

[Vidar]

11. No, it's not not. I would have been fine with a lengthy jail sentence at the time,

but 49 years later & against the victim's wishes, what purpose does this serve?

[trumad]

12. Justice...

Drug a 13 year old and fuck her in the ass and do the time.

He never did the time.

[RetroLounge]

20. "fuck her in the ass "

Was it just as fun this time?

RL

[cherokeeprogressive]

54. Well, he DID fuck her in the ass, over her objections...

Just sayin'.

[Hannah Bell]

134. did you see the hospital report? forced sodomy of 13-yr-old = serious trauma/bleeding &

& tissue tearing.

she didn't go to the hospital. she went home & called her boyfriend, & her sibling heard her talking & told the mom.

the lack of physical evidence for the "forced sodomy" was one of the factors playing into the strange sentencing exercise that followed. as was the strange fact that she apparently brought the drug (qualuude) polanski supposedly "drugged" her with.

[Raster]

158. NO ONE HERE saw the hospital report. There wasn't one.

However I'm sure that won't stop the "drugged her and fucked her in the ass" crowd.

Oh and not to forget the good folks that insinuated that because certain famous persons signed a petition asking for Polanski to be freed, they "...probably did as bad or worse..."

[Hannah Bell]

161. my point exactly. which is one reason he didn't get the book thrown at him.

contrary to DUers' apparent belief, the 70s weren't some kind of paradise for pedophiles.

Physical evidence; strangely absent.

[girl gone mad]

172. He admitted he did it.

Not only to the authorities, but in several media interviews.

That's fairly compelling evidence in and of itself.

[Hannah Bell]

178. did - what? what, exactly, did he *admit* to? not to everything contained in her story.

check it out.

[seabeyond]

167. how normal and in the norm was it for a young girl raped to go to hospital for tests

a 13 yr old, trying to hide from parent in the 70's, being driven home by the rapist, to know to go in for rape tests. were there even rape tests in the 70's? did they go to hospital, unless there was other physical damage that neeed to be treated?

because having grown up in the 60's and 70's i am not thinking there was much out there about a rape victim, all rape victims going to hospital for evidence.

please inform....

[Hannah Bell]

174. forced anal rape of a young girl = trauma. bleeding & difficulty

walking comfortably at the least.

the mother found out the same day, when the girl's sibling told her after hearing the girl tell her boyfriend. you're telling me the normal parent's reaction is to charge the perp but not get the kid checked out to be sure she's ok, when supposedly she was drugged & forcibly anally raped?

of couse rape victims went to the hospital or doctor in the 70s, & of course there were rape kits. they could do some semen typing, e.g. secretor v. non. remember ted bundy?

http://books.google.com/books?id=rO5IdAhFw_YC&pg=PA305&lpg=PA305&dq=ted+bundy+semen+test&source=bl&ots=Q2x7lhHk_a&sig=Xi9LwyIyiRmuk6BQwlFNFwl_Uo4&hl=en&ei=8G_qSpOOFY6sswPk_93cCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAQ

if you grew up in the 70s, why do you act like it was some primitive society where girls were "allowed" to be raped & there was no science or services for rape victims? especially in big cities, it wasn't the case.

here's reason number one to go to the hospital/doc for physical exam when you're alleging anal rape & asking for punishment & damages: to prove it's true so you can win.

[seabeyond]

176. bleeding, difficulty? please show me where you got this info? nt

[Hannah Bell]

177. are you dense? forced anal rape. yes, children who were raped in the 70s got medical

exams, & yes, they had rape kits.

[seabeyond]

179. so you do not have information on bleeding and difficulty. you just put it out there?

did she say she struggled? did polanski say she struggled?

in her statement she was very specific and graphic on what happened to her. do you remember her saying that she struggled?

she didnt

she told him, verbally, stop, no no stop, take me home. but.... she was fearful adn submissive. what kind of force are you talking about? no where in the report was it suggested he was aggressive or rough. simply.... she said no and he continued on

[Hannah Bell]

181. i work in a hospital. you want - what? i don't even know. it's fucking common knowledge that

even forced vaginal rape can cause tissue trauma & bleeding, let alone forced *anal* rape, let alone of a child who's not even fully grown. you want some website listing the possibilities to *prove* this?

[seabeyond]

183. again... who said she struggled. who said she had to be forced. again

she was specific and graphic in her statement. nowhere did she say she resisted adn he had to be forceful or aggressive. she was submissive and afraid. she said no. she said stop. she said take me home. and she coward and allowed.

are you telling me ALL anal sex leads to bleeding and difficulty? of course not. that is absurd. why are you assuming..... assuming she would be any different

she did not say anything about anal bleeding or difficulty in her statement

but you are making it up and insisting it is a reality with no information to support your claim

[Hannah Bell]

188. yes, i'm telling you FORCIBLE anal rape of an immature 13-year old causes trauma & bleeding.

you apparently don't understand simple anatomy.

FORCED anal rape, by a full-grown man, of a 13 year old girl, without lube (none mentioned in the dep, did you notice? just "can i go in your back?")

christ on the cross, you're too silly to even talk to.

[Hannah Bell]

190. who said she had to be forced? *you*, over & over.

[seabeyond]

180. and no. when young, inexperienced, fearful girls where raped in those situations they did NOT

think about hospital, rape kits and calling police.


they went home.

[Hannah Bell]

182. her mother found out the same evening or a.m. i guess she was too stupid to have her child checked

out, but not to stupid to initiate criminal proceedings.

you really have a problem. you act like the child was completely alone & making the decisions. she had a mother.

[seabeyond]

185. she started criminal proceeding. why didnt the cops tell her to go to the hospital?

isnt that what the cops tell the girls raped today? go to the hospital and get examined and get a rape kit done. they send an advocate and they walk the girls thru

did that happen when the mother called the police and started the proceedings? not only was the girl stupid, per you and the mother, but the cops too?

the reason why is the 70's was different than 2009

[Hannah Bell]

186. i don't know. why *didn't* they? Maybe they did, but the mother wouldn't do it.

Maybe she did, but there wasn't any evidence of anal trauma, & that's why Polanski was able to cop a plea to "unlawful sexual intercourse," aka statutory rape. All we know is no information about *any* physical exam has ever come to light, but the mother lawyered up & had Polanski charged the next day, & the plea bargain was arranged by Geimer's attorneys. If they had a solid case for "drugging & forced anal rape," why did they consent to a plea?

& why wouldn't the *mother* want to have her daughter checked out regardless of what anyone else thought, 1) to make sure there was no serious damage & 2) to make sure she didn't catch something from the perv?

contrary to your silly characterization, the case occurred in 1977, not 1777. The women's movement was well-on by then, and all the issues surrounding rape were discussed in public. Raped women *did* get physical exams, & semen *was* typed.

in seattle, the fremont women's clinic (women's reproductive health issues *for* women, *by* women) was organized in 1971, & the free clinic/45th street clinic even before that. there were all sorts of radical/feminist health initiatives going on in podunk seattle in the 70s, but you're telling me it was dark ages in los angeles?

it's absurd.

[seabeyond]

187. throw about a bunch of guesses, not knowing shit... that works. nt

[Hannah Bell]

189. i know you do. compounded with zero knowledge of basic a&p.

according to you, the child was drugged & forcibly raped via the anus - but there was no tissue trauma or bleeding. lol, dumb.

[seabeyond]

191. hannah.... you arent into discussion. you ignore what is said and continue with your absolute

that is always a waste of time for the other poster.

[TexasObserver]

113. Those who seem to relish referring to it as such are a little disturbing.

Either one is concerned with the victim or one is not. These shows of purported outrage seem a thin cover for prurient interest at times. They don't seem to have any genuine concern for the victim, now a woman in her 40s with a family. The tenor of such posts isn't concern for the victim, but a fascination with the sordid details of the incident. Some seem to get a little too much pleasure using those words.

Whatever happened that day, the person who should have the most say in this case is the victim, and if she wants it over, that is compelling for me. I'm not one who buys into the "but society has to exact a price" argument. I don't feel that way about crime.

[bobbolink]

117. Or possibly the answer is to give her protection so she can live her life AND

see him prosecuted?

[TexasObserver]

120. You're speculating. I'm not.

I am basing my comments on what she has said. You're basing yours on what you have imagined, because it fits the theme you wish to push, a theme without any basis in fact or logic.

[bobbolink]

121. for GODS"S SAKE. READ. She gave all those reasons herself.

If you got off your denigrating high horse, you would NOTICE that she wanted to quit BECAUSE she was being hassled.

I get so sick of the hyped up superiority shit here... like a bunch of kiddie RWers.

[TexasObserver]

123. When you can be calm and rational, I'll be ready to hear you.

[bobbolink]

124. Just read her words.

Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words. Just read her words.

Can you?

[TexasObserver]

127. You have a right to get the care you need.

Check it out with Social Security.

Good luck with it.

[bobbolink]

128. BWahahahaha....can't even bash with originality!

Maybe we can take up a collection to get you a new playbook.

[uppityperson]

145. am I still on ignore? probably for the best. eom

[TexasObserver]

148. I should be so lucky.

[TexasObserver]

147. You have a right to remain silent.

Like that's gonna fucking happen.

Please continue. I'm keeping a chart, and you're perfect! You've never posted anything worth the time it took to read it.

[bobbolink]

152. You have the right to make a change, and become less ugly and more like a

liberal.

That would be a welcome change.

[varelse]

157. Apparently, he can't

:(

[DrCory]

118. And if the victim wanted his execution?

"Whatever happened that day, the person who should have the most say in this case is the victim,...

Would you still feel this way?

[TexasObserver]

122. You're conflating.

The victim should have the most say in whether the case is aggressively prosecuted or dismissed. I didn't say the victim should have the ability to insist on the death penalty. However, if that were her true feeling, I'd certainly want her to express it.

[DrCory]

140. If Jaycee Lee Dugard...

"The victim should have the most say in whether the case is aggressively prosecuted or dismissed."

Were to plead the case against Phillip Garrido be dismissed, would you still advocate this?

Conflating? No, you just weren't very clear. The underlined did not articulate the perimeters you now establish:

"Whatever happened that day, the person who should have the most say in this case is the victim, and if she wants it over, that is compelling for me."

[TexasObserver]

141. Post something I care about and I'll respond.

So far, all you've said is blah blah blah, cory.

[DrCory]

142. So far, all you've done is dodge, dodge, dodge. N/T

[TexasObserver]

144. All you've done is talk about inane, off topic matters.

I am always amused by people who can't explain what they think in cogent terms, and instead rely upon badly constructed analogies to try to explain themselves.

[DrCory]

169. Your own subject matter is inane?

I commented on this statement issued by you:

"the person who should have the most say in this case is the victim"

"Say" of what? The charges, the sentence? You expect the reader to infer a very specific meaning from something so vague?

As for amusing, I find it so that you won't answer the question regarding Jaycee Lee Dugard but instead attack my intelligence.

Why is that? Care to explain?

I believe I know the answer, but we'll see what you have to offer.

[TexasObserver]

184. More semi-literate nonsense from you.

When you learn how to write above the sixth grade level, I'll start trying to decipher your posts. Until then, I don't feel like baby sitting you. Go ask your mom.

[DrCory]

192. A classic and transparent evasion tactic.

Belittling my intelligence, when it's your own which is in question if you cannot understand the question posed.

I doubt that is the case. Why are you evading?

[TexasObserver]

193. Go ask your mama.

I told you, I'm not babysitting you.

I don't have a problem responding to poster who can write cogently, or if not cogently, at least at a middle school level. You're not there.

[DrCory]

195. It is your congency which is debatable...

If you cannot understand the question I posed in post #140. As I said, it is doubtful that you don't. Therefore, your continued assault on my intelligence can only be construed as an evasion tactic. Why are you so reluctant to answer the question?

[TexasObserver]

197. There's no such word as "congency."

[DrCory]

198. Ahhh...the final, last ditch tactic of grammar ridicule.

I find attacks on typos especially amusing. It's so...cheap.

Which is precisely why I did not point out a glaring grammar error you committed in post #193:

"I don't have a problem responding to poster who can write cogently"

Did you forget something? A letter a or s perhaps?

Well, now that we have that out of the way, let's try this again. All of the mental energy you have expended avoiding a simple question has perhaps caused you to forget what it was.

Once again, If Jaycee Lee Duggard were to plead the case against Phillip Garrido be dismissed, would you advocate her wishes carry the same influence as Samantha Geimer's?

"the person who should have the most say in this case is the victim, and if she wants it over, that is compelling for me."?

[DrCory]

199. Chirp...Chirp...Were are you Texas Observer? N/T

[seabeyond]

18. all a person has to do is have money and runaway to not pay for crime? nt

[snooper2]

64. I had a warrant out for my arrest for some unpaid traffic violations

When I left the shitty state that is Missouri...

Of course that was over a decade ago and that whole statute of limitations thing kicked in :)

[MattBaggins]

23. It's serves the purpose of justice

It sends the message that you can not flee from the justice system and just thumb your nose at the country when you have committed such a heinous crime.

It sends the message that being rich and having the means to hide out in countries that think diddling kids is an awesome weekend activity will not work.

This is actually a perfect example of why the state should ignore the wishes of the victim when a crime has been committed and follow through with the prosecution. Thousands of people each year have to deal with idiot judges and unfair trials. We have a system for that. We call it the Appellate System. We would have a truly messed up system if people just start fleeing instead of facing the judicial system.

Polanski drugged and anally raped a child. He needs to serve his time just like the POOR creepy old guy down the street. He shouldn't get a free pass just because he is the RICH creepy old guy down the street.

[dysfunctional press]

38. is 49 years the magic number?

if not- how long does a person have to evade justice to make it go away?

just curious.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ferret Annica]

47. Yeah, and while we are at it, let's dig up John W. Booth's body and beat it

for his crime of killing A. Lincoln.

You can't go to thee time and place these crimes happened, which is a large reason the victim just wants this to go away. It is more important at this point to respect her wishes and to drop this.

If you hurt her now for a hurt to her long ago, that would make you as bad as Polanski in some ways. The state needs to take a chill pill on this crap.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

56. Wait. Did you actually just say that prosecuting Polanski would make the JD as bad as Polanski?

:wtf:

You added the "in some ways". Still, I absolutely disagree.

Polanski. Raped. A. Child.

He violated her and the fact that this whole mess is still going on is because HE ran away.

And your John Wilkes Booth analogy doesn't make sense either. He didn't retire in the lap of luxury. He was arrested and he would have been hung, except he was killed before he could be brought in.

[Ferret Annica]

162. What I am saying is the victim's wishes should bee respected at this point

Whether it is damage from rape by Polanski or damage because this is dredged up, it is still damage to the victim. This would be a Pyrrhic victory for the D.A. reeling in a fat and famous fish, at the expense of a major defeat in showing rape victims the danger of coming forth with a crime report.

If it turns out that those trying to protect show no sensitivity and responsiveness to how publicity from a case like this harms you, less people dare to try to get justice.

You are free to not agree,but this is my position.

[tonysam]

93. Read about the case first, then decide

Reading the Smoking Gun about what Geimer said years and years ago doesn't cut it. I stand by her, not by the witchhunters.

[MellowDem]

108. Justice isn't about the victim's wishes...

if it was, then rich criminals really could get away with murder. Just pay off the victim's family... and voila! It's not about the victim, and it's not to do with witchhunting, which I must say is the most idiotic try at distraction in this discussion yet.

[Lerkfish]

3. or the victim wants money more than justice

my explanation fits better than yours

[trumad]

5. Actually I think the victim just want's it to go away...

She already sued and won--- but the shithead Polanski didn't pay up so she had to go back to court.

[closeupready]

79. Again, put this pain all on Polanski. It's not up to her, and Polanski brought all this on her.

Not just the rape, but the unwanted attention. It is ALL on him.

[Hannah Bell]

135. she's already gotten money.

[cali]

4. wittch hunt? Hardly. He raped a thirteen year old and fled jurisdiction

That hardly fits the meaning of the phrase "witch hunt".

[trumad]

6. The apologists for polanski make me ill....

[Lerkfish]

7. If only they'd be honest about why they defend him.

that would be interesting.

[trumad]

8. They can't...

because of the crime he committed.

[MattBaggins]

24. but but but.. He's an R-teest. He's special.... NT

[Flaneur]

57. You mean like the victim? She's one of those scummy Polanski supporters.

But rage on in self-righteous, voyeuristic indignation. Americans are so good at that.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

61. This isn't outrage that a politician had an affair or a talk show host cheated on his wife.

This is not outrage at something that is legal but "morally" questionable. This isn't about prudishness.

Polanski BROKE THE LAW.

[Lerkfish]

68. "self-righteous voyeuristic indignation"... I'm afraid you don't make any sense whatsoever.

I don't see how you get from what I posted to there, honestly.

[Rebubula]

70. Rape

Do you know what that means?

The victim is not a Polanski supporter - she is self supporter. Her motives are for herself (as they should be). Our motive is to bring a child rapist to justice.

I am not sure what your motive is, but I doubt that I will ever see any of your posts again...

[MellowDem]

109. The French are good at making excuses...

for raping children. Your point?

[the other one]

10. What a bizarre statement

Considering that this thread is about the victim. I guess she must make you sick. It must be confusing inside your head.

[trumad]

14. So let me ask you...

A guy beats the shit out of his wife--- but she doesn't want to press charges...

Should he walk?

No---and he can't.... because the crime circumvents the wishes of the victim, as it should.

He drugged and fucked a 13 year old in the ass and never did his time.

But---I guess you're OK with that to?

[FiveGoodMen]

130. Third time. It must be fun...

[noiretextatique]

119. me too

pedophiles for polanski :puke:

[Rebubula]

17. WITCH HUNT????

WITCH HUNT????

Do you seriously mean that? Do you really think that Polanski was railroaded or persecuted unfairly?

Is drugging and raping a 13 year old 'sort of' OK with you as long as time has passed?

Of course, the victim in this case has put these demons behind her. However, a child was raped and he must be punished.

Fuck anyone that puts Polanksi above his crimes.

[marshall]

25. That is so often the case in domestic violence disputes

The battered spouse, usually the wife, wants to drop the charges and move on. But courts have moved toward keeping the charges regardless.

And in this case didn't Polanski pay this woman (or her mother) off?

[NashVegas]

34. An Important Hollywood Director Raped an Unimportant, Scared 13 Year Old Kid

And I'm so, so sorry you find that too unimportant to prosecute.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. Yes, punishing the guilty is the right thing to do even when the victim doesn't want it.

"Witch hunt" is the wrong phrase here - the reason that "witch hunt" has become an idiom is that there were no witches, so the victims of a witch hunt are known to be being wrongly pursued. Polanski, by contrast, is a rapist who fled from justice.

And there is a reason that in criminal trials it is the state and not the victim that is listed as the accuser. If we let criminals off because their victims don't want them punished, we open the door to criminals who are able to bribe or threaten their victims being completely impervious to the law.

The most important reason to punish crime is *not* to protect past victims (it's ipse facto too late for that), it's to discourage future crimes.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

42. Whoopie is that you? n/t

[proteus_lives]

44. Yeah, he should get away with child-rape.

:eyes:

[anonymous171]

69. "witch hunt"? Is that what the pursuit of justice is called these days?

[DrCory]

143. Your remark is an insult to rape victims...

Witches exist only in fantasy. Rapists however, like Mr. Polanski, are very real.

[TexasObserver]

9. Recommend

[ecstatic]

13. Her wishes are irrelevant. He is a rapist and must be charged

as such.

[trumad]

15. exactly

[Cirque du So-What]

16. I agree

The good of all society takes precedence over the wishes of a single victim.

[Astrad]

26. Acutally her wishes are not irrelevant

Victim impact statements are a staple of the court, both aggravating and mitigating. It may not lead to a dismissal but a court, unlike you, would take into consideration her concerns.

[walldude]

28. I agree. According to the article she is suffering

from "health related issues" and is in danger of losing her job. So in our zeal to prosecute her rapist we will ruin her life? A life that must have been pretty difficult to get back after the rape? Sorry but the victim is not fucking irrelevant and the people here who seem to be enjoying this whole thing well, to me seem no better than Polanski himself.

[spoony]

30. her suffering is still due to Polanski

He fled, thereby dragging this whole thing out. His actions, then and since, set up her suffering, NOT the people who want justice served.

[NashVegas]

36. Thanks For Pointing That Out

[katsy]

31. Arresting and charging polanski is not the cause of her problems.

She should get a better class of lawyers maybe and sue the media outlets for damages.


From the article:

They also complain that Ms Geimer is being stalked by journalists from news outlets and talk show producers, and that she and her lawyer had received nearly 500 telephone calls in a month.

"Larry King has called, Oprah has called, every national network morning show has called. The LA Times has three reporters calling, as do nearly every major newspaper in the United States and abroad. The response - 'Please leave me alone.' But they won't."

"The pursuit has caused her to have health-related issues," the court papers add.

"The pursuit has caused her performance at her job to be interfered with and has caused the understandable displeasure of her employer and the real possibility that Samantha could lose her job."

[Teaser]

48. "seem no better than Polanski himself. " FAIL

Words have meanings. They aren't just pretty sounds you string together to try and sound thoughtful.

[uppityperson]

59. Her "health related issues" are due to media stalking her. THEY are ruining her life, as well as Po

as well as Polanski. THEY are the problem, not those trying to hold Polanski responsible for his crime.

Are you seriously saying that it is ok to assault someone, then if you get enough people to continue to stalk them that the criminal should just be let go?

[ecstatic]

29. Her suffering will not ease if he is let go

Trust me. She will be hounded more than ever if that happens.

[NashVegas]

40. She Can Always Try Personally Suing Producers & Board Members of the Media Corps

Bet that'll get those phone calls to stop.

[cali]

32. Actually, that's very unlikely.

he's already been found guilty on the original charges.

[DatManFromNawlins]

65. Actually, they are completely irrelevant

When Polanski decided to flee the country, he broke the law.

[middle distance]

87. maybe she wasn't completely honest in the beginning

Its possible that she wasn't completely honest about what happened... maybe she actually consented to the sex; and this is part of the reason she wants the charges dropped.

Remember he only plead guilty to statutory rape, not forcible rape. Thus he claimed it was consensual sex. Since those charges were dropped as part of the bargain, Polanski stands innocent of those until proven guilty.

[Nye Bevan]

21. A child rapist (who happens to be rich) agrees to pay his victim $500,000

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=polanski+paid+%24500%2C000&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS228HK230&ie=UTF-8

After which the victim says hey, let's drop the charges. I know this guy plied me with champagne and Quaaludes and anally raped me but you know what, let's all just be friends.

Anyone who is calling for this case to be dropped is basically arguing that rich people should be able to buy their way out of child rape charges.

[trumad]

22. And guess what...

He reneged on the deal and she had to go after him again.

[Hannah Bell]

136. did he ply her with quaaludes? did he anally rape her? there's significant doubt

either of those items are true.

first, there was only *one* quaalude involved, & polanski took 2/3 of it; he (by her own testimony) had to ask her if it *was* a quaalude.

she (by her own testimony) had taken quaalude before, knew what it/did was & knew the dosage.

i don't dispute that polanski had no business with an underage girl, that he had sex with her, or that sex with a minor is legally *rape*.

i nevertheless doubt the "He drugged her & forcibly anally raped her!!" story.

Which is why I think this renewed prosecution, 30+ years later, is a witch-hunt, initiated for reasons the public isn't privy to.

[Lilith Velkor]

153. She also (by her own testimony) said NO.

Why does that particular part of her testimony seem to elude you so?

[Hannah Bell]

160. I don't dispute it. I dispute the bullshit retelling of the "drugging" bit.

Why does that seem to elude you so?

[Gwendolyn]

154. Nobody but Polanski and Geimer will ever know what truly happened.

One thing is for sure. If Polanski was some middle-management Initech type of guy instead of a foreign film director who makes movies with sexual overtones, no one would give a crap about any of this.

The money wouldn't have been spent to bring him back, the papparazzi wouldn't be camped outside Geimer's door and people here and populating other websites wouldn't be obsessed to the point of not sleeping over it.

[girl gone mad]

175. He admitted it.

Oh, but he's a rich an famous director, so we are supposed to just forget all about that and call his victim a money-grubbing whore instead. :eyes:

[katsy]

27. The victim's lawyers should bill the media whores for every call they field

regarding their client. And I wouldn't mind if they padded their charges either. People shouldn't be harassed by these goons. I would hope a court rules that they can bill these annoying creeps.

But that's no reason to dismiss the charges against polanski. Okay, she filed her appeal. I don't know if it should carry any weight at all in a criminal matter. Would think not.

There were legal avenues for polanski to appeal the ruling of a corrupt judge. Running away was not one of those legal avenues. It would not be legal for John Nobody Doe down the street and last I knew, fame, talent, money and privilege doesn't make it okay to run either. And yes, other people in high places get away with murder... but that doesn't excuse this maggot and his crime.

Polanski was a celebrity whose reach would certainly assure a fair review of any charges of corruption. He had the means and connections to get an appeal.

Why run?

[NashVegas]

33. Fine. Let Him Face the Judge

And let the chips fall where they may.

[trumad]

39. Agree

[dysfunctional press]

35. in statutory rape cases- the 'victim' is also the state.

and i don't think that california is going to seek dismissal.

[Teaser]

50. and in flight from prosecution

the victim was solely the state.

[Iggo]

37. Say good-bye, Polanski thread.

:hi:

[tmyers09]

43. I feel that

If one of the main reasons of justice is to deter future crimes, then this one should be dropped. I really don't think a 76 year old man is a danger to society. He wasn't a danger to society for the past thirty years, he won't be now. Sure, he bailed at the beginning, but it's not about 1977, it's about 2009. And in 2009, our prisons are extremely overcrowded. Prisoners much more dangerous than him are being released, why release more just to put him in? Nobody is arguing that what he did wasn't wrong. It's just time to let it go. The woman who it actually happened to did, why can't the general public?

[closeupready]

75. For the sake of argument, let's assume Geimer decided to do something harmful to Polanski.

Would you be like, hey, we should respect her wishes, and just let it go?

[uppityperson]

80. So you would like the message to get out for other people that, in the future, if they hide long eno

if they hide long enough, their crime will be overlooked?

That is exactly the reason why this should NOT be dropped. To deter future crimes.

[girl gone mad]

173. Actually, I think prosecuting him would be a great deterrent.

It could send the message to other rich, connected guys that they aren't above the law.

[proteus_lives]

45. Doesn't Matter.

He can't be allowed to get allow with child rape because he's rich, famous and a "artist"

He's a child molester and he should and will be punished.

The state must have it's justice.

[tmyers09]

46. I'm not saying he should be allowed to get away with it.

I'm saying that because he's 76 years old, and a possible high profile target for other prisoners, he should have to do community service or pay some cash to the struggling state, turn it into a possible positive. At the absolute worst, the remaining 47 days or whatever in solitary confinement.

[uppityperson]

60. Child rapists suffer if in general prison population. Simply saying pay or do community service isn'

enough though. Treat him like other child rapists.

[Flaneur]

81. Are you advocating that Polanski be raped?

Or merely beaten to a pulp? It sounds like you'd be happy with either.

Could be stuff for reflecting on.

[uppityperson]

82. Not advocating that at all. Put him in solitary like so many end up doing.

But don't let him buy his way out or simply do community service.

Perhaps you are assuming or projecting?

[Romulox]

49. Criminal law doesn't vindicate the rights of the victim, but rather those of society. nt

[leftynyc]

51. Not her call

His crime was also against the state and he fled jurisdiction. Lock his rapist ass up.

[SoCalDem]

52. It's not up to her.. The state of California wants him and his crime

is only "dismissable" by the state..they are not planning to do that.

[reorg]

53. so much for "the rights of the victims"

that the revenge seeking crowd carry as their banner.

"It's not her call!" - "The state is the victim!"

Yeah right. Why don't you just send your special forces and let them finish what the Nazis and Manson failed to accomplish.

[redqueen]

55. See post #14... and stow the laughable "Nazis" and "Manson" BS. (nt)

[reorg]

63. yeah, it's all about the fictitious revenge of the "righteous"

Your lives will all be so much better once he is done in.

[uppityperson]

72. No, everyone's life is better if criminals can just go free is paparazzi is obnoxious, right?

What a great idea! Break the law and harm someone, then sic the paparazzi on them and voila! You can just go free!

good grief

[uppityperson]

62. wtf? You make no sense here. None at all.

[reorg]

66. oh, really?

Ever since the latest upsurge in law-and-order mentality some time around the early nineties, we were always told that it is not about irrational fascination with violence and crime but out of concern for the victims, see e.g. here:

http://www.trynova.org/about/victimrights.html

You'll see that the first and apparently most important demands are for

- protection from intimidation and harm
- rights to privacy.

The victim has long settled with the perpetrator and made it more than obvious that she wants none of what is going on right now. Seems to me there must be some hypocrites around.

[uppityperson]

67. wtf do Nazis and Manson have to do with that? You are confusing issues

I don't think the Nazis or Manson raped this woman as a child. I thought it was Polanski. And yeah, holding someone responsible for their crime is sooooo like what the Nazis and Manson did :sarcasm:

I agree that victims need protection against intimidation and harm, and have a right to privacy but that needs to be taken up with those who are intimidating/harming her, the media.

Simply letting a rapist go free because media paparazzi is harassing a victim is wrong, is NOT what victim's rights are about.

[trumad]

71. Wow!!!

Let me ask you a question--- what if he drugged your daughter and fucked her in the ass? You OK with that?

[Nye Bevan]

73. Yeah. He did offer her $500,000 after all.

Of course rich people should be able to buy their way out of child rape charges.

[closeupready]

76. Would you be okay with it if she did something bad to Polanski herself?

Does she get a special dispensation to, say, DRUG HIM AGAINST HIS WILL AND ANALLY RAPE HIM?

[reorg]

83. apparently she doesn't want to ...

I think this matter could have been dealt with appropriately in a few counselling sessions with a competent psychologist. But then, of course, the greedy public would have been deprived of their great spectacle.

[closeupready]

84. But if she did want to, I assert that you would claim that "this is barbaric! and we can not respect

her wishes."

And further, do you know if she sustained any permanent tissue damage from having had her anus involuntarily penetrated by a grown man's erect penis? Do you know if she contracted any incurable STD's?

[reorg]

85. of course I would not agree with that

IMO revenge is for retards, in case I wasn't clear enough.

I'm not among those who pretend to speak "for the victim" when in fact they haven't even reached the rational age in their mental development.

[closeupready]

86. You don't have to pretend to speak for Geimer - she spoke.

She most recently said 'let it go.' That is a fact - there is no pretending here. (In fact, isn't that the whole point of the opening post?)

What others are arguing is 1) her pain is entirely Polanski's fault, not 'vengeance-seeking blood lusting savage Americans'; 2) her wishes have no bearing on the sentence which is due him for having broken the law.

[reorg]

89. 'vengeance-seeking blood lusting savage Americans'

are doing a pretty good job at showing who they are, so there's no need for me to speak for them either.

That they blatently disregard the wishes and needs of "the victim" in this matter only goes to show that such concerns have always been pretenses and a thin ideological veneer for the string-em-up mentality.

(Except if some of these concern-for-the-victims groups speak up now and tell the blood hounds to shove it. Not exactly holding my breath, though ...)

[closeupready]

100. Would you support her wishes if she had violent wishes?

If she said that she needed to see him hurt (as she was hurt, such as seeing him anally raped) so as to set this matter to rest in her mind, would you support that? If not, wouldn't you also be blatantly disregarding her needs and wishes?

[reorg]

107. How do you come up with these revenge fantasies?

And I already answered your question, don't you read replies addressed to you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6864845&mesg_id=6867991

And just to make sure: No, even if she had been raped in full view of an entire city I would not agree to let her cut the perpetrator's heart out with a knife and eat it. But I'm sure there are people who would just love to see (all of) this and I think I know where I could find them.

[closeupready]

129. Okay. It's clear to me that you aren't thinking rationally here.

Rational does not mean criminals must not be punished; nor does it mean, if all my friends say x, I have to say x. It means, you are looking at crime, deciding on what the punishment should be, at executing that prescribed punishment, with provisions for exceptional circumstances, such as - as with Polanski - those who flee the execution of their prescribed punishment before authorities have a chance to do so.

I am not trying to diminish your views. But they aren't rational, they aren't systematic, and that is what a justice system is all about - impartially imposing fair punishments on criminals.

[uppityperson]

58. Exactly WHY rape, dv, other such crimes are against the State.

THIS is why these type crimes (and other violent ones) are against the State. A crime was committed.

The media needs to quit hounding her, but the solution is not to let the rapist go.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Echo In Light]

77. POLANSKI!!!

[closeupready]

78. If Geimer drugged and anally raped Polanksi, would that be fair?

That's a serious question for you soft-on-crime people here.

If not, please explain why not?

[Hannah Bell]

138. her testimony:

when i walked in he had a container. & he had a pill broken into 3 parts. and he said, "is this a quaalude?

and i went, "yes."

and he said, "oh, do you think i will be able to drive if i take it?"

& i went, "i don't know," you know.

He says, "well, should i take it?"

I went, "I don't know."

and he says, "Well, i guess i will," and he took it.

and he says "do you want part?"

and i went "no."

and he says -- oh, at that time i went "ok," because -- i don't know.

Q: why did you take it?

I don't know. i think i must have been pretty drunk or else i wouldn't have.

Q: before you took the part of the tablet, had you had more champagne than you testified to?

i told you i didn't know how much because i kept drinking some of his too....

Q: when he asked you if it was a quaalude you answered "yes"?

yes.

Q: had you seen quaaludes before then?

yes.

Q: on what occasion?

i have seen pictures of them & they're on the shirts & once i found one.

Q: how old were you then?

i was, i think, 11 or 10. i'm not sure.

Q: what did you do with them?

I broke it & i took part of it....

Q: is that (exhibit) similar to the tablet mr. polanski produced?

yes.

Q: what did it say on it?...

it said Rorer 714.

Q: you knew that to be a quaalude?

yes....

Q: was that a solid quaalude or not?

it was already broken. it looked like it was a whole one. three thick pieces put to make the whole one.

Q: did mr. p. take part of one?

yes.

Q: what did he do with it?

he swallowed it with his champagne...

Q: how much of the tablet did he give you?

it was a little less than half.

Q: how did you take that tablet?

i took it with a swallow of champagne.

Q: what happened after you took it?

i went into the kitchen. i don't know why, but i thought if i ate--i realized i was drinking & then i took that. and i then got really upset with myself so i started eating...

Q: after eating in the kitchen, what did you do?

he called my name & i went out & got in the jacuzzi...


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib16.html

[tmyers09]

88. CLARIFICATIONS

What I meant to say, is that if somebody is sexually mature, and fully agrees to it, they should be able to have sex. RAPE DOES NOT FALL UNDER THAT CATEGORY. I never said it did, nor did I condone rape.

This, combined with comments in another thread about an alleged molester getting beaten almost to death with a cinder block, made some people make comments that I was a molestation apologist, or that they fear for children around me, other derogatory things. I felt the need to clarify. Maybe my age influences my thoughts on this situation. I just graduated high school a few months ago, and I have seen and heard firsthand how many teenagers there are who are sexually active. Maybe if I had kids of my own, my opinions would change.

[uppityperson]

90. Thank you for the clarification.

If you are who you say you are, welcome to DU. You will learn a lot, and you will get jumped on also. I know I did, for things I wasn't aware of being offensive or for just not being clear enough.

Thank you for the clarification.

[tmyers09]

102. I'm just a 17 year old disgusted with the greed, intolerance, and...

general douchebaggery of the right. I've written some stuff in notes on Facebook, I can post them if you'd like.

[tmyers09]

105. profile and such

http://www.facebook.com/myers.timothy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6852097

[Kitty Herder]

94. Some nine-year olds are sexually mature.

Are you saying they are capable of meaningful consent at that age?

You're still scary and if I had kids, I would fear for them around you.

[tmyers09]

98. What I mean by sexually mature

is that they have gone through puberty, and are informed enough to know what sex is and whatnot. Obviously, nobody at 9 is. Also, the level of maturity. Some 14 or 15 year old can be more mature than some 24 or 25 year olds. It's a case by case basis, and I'm not scary!

[closeupready]

101. I think you've adequately clarified. You are still very young, but

when you get to be a little older, your thoughts are likely to change. Peace.

[tmyers09]

103. Thanks. I don't want anybody here thinking I'm a rapist.

[closeupready]

104. No obviously not. You just need to brush up on communication skills and such.

If I had a dollar for every time I'd put my foot in my mouth, I'd be ready for retirement.

[seabeyond]

110. hopefully it is about the age, and that being your peer group. thanks

for clarifying.

stick around, there is a lot of learning for all of us, here

and welcome.

[NashVegas]

116. I Appreciate the Clarification

Quite simply, the situations where a 13 year old is going to have the sexual maturity and be fully consentual with a 48 year old?

In anything resembling a balanced equation?

Few and far between, wouldn't you think?

[tonysam]

91. They need to throw this crap out

Absolutely ridiculous to pursue it...and it IS Geimer's call, by the way. What the hell could the prosecution do? The most it could do is jail Polanski for "fleeing" after finding out the judge committed misconduct.

Her life should not have to be ruined because of the idiots in the media; that was the reason she and her mother made the deal with Polanski in the first place.

[uppityperson]

92. how about keep media away from her, and still hold Polanski responsible for his crimes?

Should it be legal to assault someone, then simply pay them off rather than being held legally responsible?

[middle distance]

96. he plead guilty to statutory rape

He has a conviction in California for statutory rape. Therefore they don't need Geimer involved at all to punish Polanski; and I think they can put him in prison for quite a long time, maybe 10 years or so, not sure.

I would hardly say its ridiculous to pursue it, considering he is a convict that fled the country to evade justice. In my opinion, he should have to be here to plead his case regarding the judicial misconduct, rather than sending his lawyers to court without him to file motions.

[Shrek]

125. Not true. He's still criminally liable for the original crimes.

Slate article:

The DA's office won't need to prove anything about this long-ago charge when they get Polanski back into court. The only open question for the judge will be his punishment. And though the director's lawyers will of course argue otherwise, it's hard to see why the judge who is now on the case, Peter Espinoza, should be bound by the supposed promise of a light sentence that the earlier judge, Laurence Rittenband, made in 1978. The big legal difference between then and now, of course, being of Polanski's own making—his flight.

The DA's office has another weapon against Polanski, members of Cooley's staff made clear when I was in the office. That's the other more serious charges against Polanski. Because he skipped town (yes, that's the recurring theme here), these other charges were never dismissed, as Rittenband had indicated, pre flight, that they would be. They include rape, child molestation, oral copulation, sodomy, and providing drugs to a minor.

[Kitty Herder]

95. Rapists must be held accountable to protect others.

The victim may not wish for him to be prosecuted, but what about others who he may potentially rape?

What about the message being sent that rape is a-ok if you happen to be rich and successful?

[middle distance]

99. you think Polanski is a threat?

I think its pretty clear that Polanski is not a threat to society, so that is not a good argument. The best argument is simply that you can't allow convicts to flea the court's jurisdiction, because then the laws become meaningless.

[Kitty Herder]

106. Anyone who was ever capable of such an act as he committed is a threat.

Even when they're old. He obviously has a sadistic streak a mile wide.

But I agree with you that you can't allow convicts to flea the court's jurisdiction because it renders the law meaningless. That's an excellent argument. But in a high-profile case of violent sexual victimization, I think it becomes even more important because too often the state is ineffectual in deterring such behavior and when they do stick to their guns, it sends a message that perhaps they really are serious about enforcing the law.

[ismnotwasm]

97. Poor woman

I feel for her, what a horrid thing to have to go through. I bet she's getting hate mail as well.

[juno jones]

111. "Fucked her in the ass".

No matter which side you take, cut that language the hell out. It's damn disrespectful to a rape victim, particularly one who has had years to try to build a new life away from that pain. Maybe language like that is why this woman wants it to just go away after so many years.

The prurient intrest that tabloid journalism has in this story is obviously raping her a second, third and fourth time.

on edit: This was not directed at the OP, but commenters in the thread who used that language.

[Nye Bevan]

112. Agreed. "Plied her with champagne and Qaaludes and anally raped her"

adequately describes what Polanski did to the child, without the profanity and disrespectful language.

[juno jones]

133. Thank you.

I have been stupid enough to get involved with these threads in the first place, but the explicitness of some posters shows their insensitivities as well.

[NashVegas]

115. Some of Us Have Kissed Politeness Goodbye, and For Good Reason

Too many others have defended and continue to indulge in apologia for Polanski's rape of a scared 13 year old kid.

"But she looked older."
"It wasn't the first time she'd taken drugs."
"Her mom wanted her to be a star."
"She wasn't a virgin."

The language you are now seeing did not emerge until shortly after 2005, thanks very much, and for good reason.

[seabeyond]

132. girls were allowed to be raped in those. was the 70's. nt

[Hannah Bell]

163. right. everyone was out there raping girls in the 70s. lol, what people won't believe.

[seabeyond]

165. everyone? really? and i am someone. am i part of everyone? what some people wont say. nt

[Hannah Bell]

170. you're the one who said girls were "allowed" to be raped in the 70s.

you want to reconsider that remark?

[seabeyond]

171. i responded to the post that was giving excuses for the rape. that was another one said

back in the 70's that wasnt considered rape.... the only kind of rape was stranger on the street. the whoopi rape rape

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hekate]

114. She needs protection from media harassment, but his legal case is not up to her but up to the law...

All she wants is for this to go away, but that is not how criminal cases are decided, is it? I do wish the law, in its turn, would protect her in the here and now.

Hekate

[PM Martin]

126. I understand Ms. Geimer's position.

Though it is not up to her to decide this case.
There cannot be a precedent where someone convicted of a serious crime can run away for 30 year before serving their sentence.
If Polanski does not complete his sentence this will only serve as encouragement for others to do as he did.

[Jeep789]

137. He basically exiled himself

perhaps she considered that and the payment a worthy sentence. I'm not sure I disagree.

[Skittles]

139. so, rich people can move and pay off victims

nice

[closeupready]

146. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But the law prescribes specific punishments for child rape.

And that is what the justice system has been charged with executing.

[PM Martin]

156. And lived a life of luxury and having his rear end

kissed by every ding dong in Paris.

[Darth_Kitten]

149. Thank Polanski, Ms. Geimer.

If he didn't flee the country and took his punishment, this media circus wouldn't still be going on.

[closeupready]

150. Yup. It is ALL on him.

All of this.

[pleah]

151. I wish this much hate and vengence had been directed toward bush and dick.

We might have had actual war crimes trials. Just saying. ( For the record I'm with the victim on this one.)

[reorg]

155. makes you think, doesn't it?

But then again, in thirty years, if they are still alive ...

[Raster]

159. I would have loved to have read "drugged him and fucked him in the ass"

bush and dick, that is.

[Heidi]

166. So, your means of addressing torture is by committing torture? (nt)

[Raster]

168. Of course not.

however, it is bush* and cheney*...

[Echo In Light]

164. Lotta pent up ugliness out there

[benEzra]

194. How many of the Polanski defenders are advocating for the release of those priests

who raped altar boys?

Is raping a child only bad if it's done by someone you disagree with politically?

[Odin2005]

196. I see the usual rape apologists are out in force again.

:eyes: