L.A. Times: Testimony Of Roman Polanski's Victim Turned "Almost Benign"

Los Angeles Times:

An extensive review of several thousand court documents, as well as numerous interviews, shows a basic dynamic defining the entire saga -- one force trying to drive debate away from a young girl's unshaken allegations, and another trying to reel it back in.

Read the whole story: Los Angeles Times

Comments

[seattle music]

Principaldad wrote:
It is amazing that you are willing to reject all of the victim's testimony, Polanski's public statements, the testimony of the victim's mother, the physical evidence, and so on, but you choose to trot out these claims that are based on nothing but your own imagination.

"He concluded it would be difficult to win the case." How do you know this?

****************

Exactly. The victim in this case swore to tell the truth -- under penalty of being charged with perjury -- and faced that grand jury of adult strangers all alone at the age of 13. Every bit of her testimony was consistent with the testimony of others (her friend, Angelica Houston, her parents, the doctors who examined her, the forensics, Polanski's own plea) yet they reject her out of hand, preferring their own fabrications.

[World Citizen]

As I read the comments of some people here that challenge what it is that Polanski did, if it was truly rape usually under the 'banner' of presumption of innocence, I wonder if these people would care to take a step back to ponder whether Polanski did something illegal when he left the United States before his sentencing?

I also truly wonder what kind of experiences these people have had that the extradition of Polanski affects them so much enough that it compels them to challenge how this case should have affected the victim and other victims, why the victim herself wants the charges dropped, to challenge the black and white text in transcripts to the point of expressing that it is difficult to prove that Polanski raped a 13 year old.

As I read these comments, I can't help but get reminded how difficult it is for victims to even get the truth about their experience acknowledged. I also got reminded of how a child sexual abuser would often tell his victim that what happened is a secret between the two of them, thereby drawing the victim into his circle of evil by further corrupting the mind of the child to make the child think that she somehow caused what happened to her.

[jackbutler5555]

Is there something wrong with the presumption of innocence?

[World Citizen]

"And so Gunson asked: “Mr. Polanski, to Count III of indictment number A-334139, which charges you with the commission of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse on March 10th, 1977, a felony, how do you plead?” Polanski: “Guilty.”"

Could you still presume Polanski to be innocent after he pleaded "Guilty"? Do you truly expect your comment about 'presumption of innocence' to be not received for what it is - which is absurd?

[Principaldad]

There is nothing wrong with presumption of innocence. Just the opposite.

However, there is such a thing as common sense. Accused people are considered innocent under the law until they are convicted. It is a legal concept designed to give people a fair chance in court.

That does not mean that every person in society must always treat an accused person as if they are completely innocent. If Polanski had been a school teacher and not a directory, he would have been suspended the moment there were indictments.

This is especially true when the accused person has repeatedly admitted to several of the crimes for which they are charged. A little common sense please.

Certainly, when Polanski is extradited and if he is allowed to retract the guilty plea, then he will be innocent until proven guilty. He will also be innocent until proven guilty of the charges for escaping. However, he is still required to stand for those charges.

[mirandawilde]

Beautifully said, World Citizen

[World Citizen]

As I read the comments of some people here stating that there :

- is no proof of the premeditated sexual assault;

- that the victim was not a child ;

- that (one person who said that) he is old-fashioned and therefore he clings to the principle of presumption of innocence and that it would be difficult to convict Polanski now;

- that it's the mother's fault;

- that one person who patronizingly call others 'toots' / 'dearie' says that people that want to see justice for all - are fools and that they belong to a lynch mob

- that people that think extradition of Polanski is the right prescription are dimwitted and simple-minded

- that people that respond against them are 'dirty minded' (imagine this reversal !)

I am reminded there are truly some vile, perverse manipulators that would turn anything on its head and spin it until one can't help but think : 'WTF' and one wonders about their experiences and if they are protecting their own hides. But like one poster said, "does not matter if they are sexual predators themselves or paid spinners...", they are just simply depraved.

What these people don't realize is that responding to their spin is not a challenge to the mind but more of a challenge to the stomach since their comments usually have the automatic effect of producing an upchuck.

[leeclayton]

How exactly does slanderous speculation regarding the personal lives of those who disagree with the lynch mob qualify as "responding against them"? In the real world, that kind of "responding" would be about as legal as what Polanski did.

[World Citizen]

Which one fitted? Sexual predator, paid spinner or simply depraved?

[Gelfling]

The use of the term "lynch mob" to unfairly characterize decent folks who may want to raise awareness of what constitutes rape can also be described as slanderous and self-righteous as well. Just sayin'....

[DreamerWeaver]

Citizen:
Your comments are thoughtful and valid. There are other comments here that are too cute. This is not a simple case. It's a disservice to the notion of having a responsible discussion, much more to justice, to exaggerate on either side, or to mock either side.
This is not a simple case. And if we boil down some of the comments on this thread, and some others on this subject, I become queasy with the stench of crass distortion and bias against young girls and their mothers. And I am one who has compassion for Polanski! I have argued elsewhere for compassion on both sides. But the assumptions and exaggerations made by the Polanski side while at the same time they plead for following only facts for Polanski's defense, is disgusting. (I don't want to use a high sounding phrase like "intellectually and morally dishonest" because it is downright disgusting.)

Thank you for writing, Citizen. I appreciate the effort made and others ought to read you again.

[Eris23]

Actually, it is a relatively simple case, unless Polanski wants to take the issue that he never had any sexual contact with Geimer. If he did, he broke the law simply as a result of her age. Consent no longer is even an issue and, thus, doesn't have to be established. There's no mens rea prong to the crime. It's merely based on the act alone.

In addition, in regards to him going on the lam, it's an even simpler case, unless Polanski takes the position that he's actually been in the US the whole time and showed up for sentencing. ;)

[jackbutler5555]

Lots to answer. I'll try to be brief so I don't run out of permissible words.

Premeditation: Prosecutor looked at the evidence, concluded he could not proceed. Not a child: Call her what you will. She was underage. Difficult to convict: The prosecutor backed off and made a deal. Why would he do that? Mother's fault? I never discuss the mother. "Toots, dearie": Not guilty, Justice for all, guilty. Dimwitted, dirty-minded: I never use ad hominems.

But speaking of ad hominems, are you not using a few yourself? "Protecting your own hides," perhaps. " Depraved?"

Finally, I fervently hope I didn't produce an "upchuck."

[jackbutler5555]

mirandawilde responded to a comment I made with vigor. It landed in my account but it hasn't been posted yet, That makes me think that HP might have found fault with it. I'd like to answer it, but it's not possible.

miranda, if you're watching, why don't you resubmit without the "slimey, little worm" reference. See if that works.

[mirandawilde]

Or how about if I just restate that Polanski is a sli.my little wo.rm of a man?
Because it appears to me that indeed he is.

[Pancake]

...Before you plead GUILTY do you understand your rights Mr. Polanski....?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html

[seattle music]

Polanski pleaded guilty AFTER the court explained to him that he would be subject to a Mentally Disordered Sex Offender proceeding.

He also swore in court that at the time of the rape, he KNEW that she was 13.

And still his sycophants defend him.

[sexyrexy]

you really don't get it.. do you dear??

guess NOT!

[sexyrexy]

no.. & my daughter will never find herself in such a situation for anything like this to happen..

I find most of you love to blame Polanski as well eskewing parental responsiblities!

[seattle music]

Polanski plead guilty to the crime you're blaming on her mother.

[sexyrexy]

THIS GIRL WOULDN'T HAVE FOUND HERSELF IN SUCH A PICKLE-- if it wasn't for her mOTHER!

there's s uch a thing as PREVENTION, you know!

[brady61995]

you can only hope

[sexyrexy]

no hope dear.. fact.

if the Swiss have NO umterior motive?/ they would have done this ages ago after all-- Polanski goes t o Gstaad annually.. then why?? all of a sudden now? when Washington is asking for those Swiss bank accounts?!

doesn't take einstein to figure this out.

there's no such thing as coincidence..

[jackbutler5555]

Maybe I shouldn't introduce some rationality in the midst of a group catharsis. But here goes any way. Link to the dictionary definition of rape:

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/rape

[seattle music]

No female over the age of 15 needs to check the dictionary for the definition of the word 'rape'.

It's either been done to us by then, or to one of our close friends, or a sister, or some other close acquaintance.

Usually more than one.

We are all too familiar with rape.

[jackbutler5555]

There is a mismatch here. Your passionate. I'm dispassionate, as are a few here who regard presumption of innocence as a cornerstone of our criminal legal system.

By the way, I would like to see meaningful changes in our society that would prevent rape. No woman should find herself in a vulnerable position with a rapist. There are some things a woman can do and some changes we ought to make in our society. You would agree that the successful prevention of rape would be more effective than the punishment of rapists. Both are necessary.

By the same token, men and women should avoid finding themselves in a he-said, she-said situation. We can do a better job of reducing those situations.

[Ergon]

According to California statute, he committed rape.

[jackbutler5555]

He did, huh? Why did the DA settle for sex with an under age girl, if they could have proved rape? They liked his movies?

[Gelfling]

Good definition. The term "force" doesn't always mean physical force, so you may have to define "force" too. Keep in mind that is why we use statutory definitions of criminal acts instead of dictionary definitions.

[jackbutler5555]

You're right. But the prosecutors backed off from a more serious charge. I know you think they're good guys. They didn't want to make the girl suffer. My impression of prosecutors is different from that. And as I pointed out before, the public was outraged. The DA is an elective office. They would have moved against Polanski if they had the goods. They instead went with unlawful sex. No force.

[thegirlnextdoor]

Birllance and genius are a responsibility, not a free pass for bad behavior!

[jackbutler5555]

You'd be hard put to find somebody to have that debate with.

[thegirlnextdoor]

I seem to live in a world of typos. and I miss spell check.

p.s. I don't understand your reply.

[Secularist]

The writer of this piece does plenty of whitewashing himself, like in his blind acceptance of uncorroborated comments and opinions which he presents as truth. For example, the reporter says that in the "sympathetic" documentary (I would say that the doc was just fair. If they did not go into the more lurid details, it was out of respect for the victim who appeared in the film, but rest assured that all the serious charges of which Polanski was accused of were mentioned); anyway the reporter writes that in the documentary "Dalton (Polanski's lawyer) told the filmmaker that (Judge) Fidler was ready to hold a hearing and let Polanski go without more time in custody, but wanted the hearing televised -- a condition Polanski wouldn't accept. A court spokesman, Alan Parachini, called this a "complete fabrication.""

Allow me to give an example of how the writer does some selective reporting himself. 1. The comment about the televised hearings was made by both the defense AND the prosecution, but the reporter conveniently forgets to mention that, making it look like it was just the defense and therefore not to be trusted. 2. BOTH the defense and the prosecution issued a joint statement saying that they were in fact NOT lying and charged the court with making a "false and reprehensible statement."

[Secularist]

As for the fact that the deputy DA lied, it doesn't really change the heart of the misconduct case as both the defense and the prosecution give damning testimony against the original judge, who was then removed from the case on a motion from both parties. Not that any of what I just wrote minimizes the original offense, but it's an example of how the news media can slant the information and then say "we report, you decide."

[seattle music]

Nothing that the judge or the prosecutor or the defense did changes ONE NANOSECOND of what Polanski did to his 13-year-old victim.

It's all smoke and mirrors -- the big game that lawyers and the press love to play.

Meanwhile, Polanski admitted to the basic facts of the case -- that he committed unlawful sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14.

Everything else is important, but at the end, irrelevant as far as Polanski's guilt or innocence are concerned.

He raped her. She said so -- described it in exact and excruciating detail at the time. Ms. Houston corroborated it at the time -- saw him naked in the bedroom with her. Her family saw him pick her up and drop her off. Her friend testified that he ditched her -- that despite her family's wishes and intention that she be accompanied by a friend, he got rid of this potentially damning witness. The staff at Vogue Homme in France testified that he NEVER HAD a photo-shoot arranged with them.

He admitted his guilt at the time and plead guilty.

Period.

[Ergon]

I don't know how much time he will spend in jail once extradited to the U.S.
But it seems he was trying to return when he attempted to have the charges thrown out last year.
Sorry, Harvey Weinstein, he won't be making a movie for you in the US, and anywhere else, you'll be hit by the mother of all boycotts.

[leeclayton]

I doubt that Weinstein relies much on the doltish revenge-junkie demographic as it is.

[Ergon]

Then why hire the PR demographic to defend Polandski?

[don quixote12]

If you could see past your condescesion, you might have a clue that holding someone accountable for rape is not "doltish".

[jackbutler5555]

A major boycott, eh? How do you get there, based on the anti-Polanski stuff on the board?

[sexyrexy]

who ever said-- Polanski wanted to do films here,now??

[Pancake]

What he wants to do may not be a factor.

http://www.reuters.com/article/peopleNews/idUSTRE58T7VO20090930

[Secularist]

The problem with most boycotts is that the people who are most likely to boycott are not the people who are the target audience anyway. Like remember when the conservatives in red states boycotted France? I think they actually bought more French wine than they ever had just so that they can spill it in protest.

Neither Weinstein, nor the petitioners either broke or somehow thwart the law. They simply advocated for leniency on behalf of their friend and colleague, who many of them know personally and believe to be not a bad man who is sufficiently sorry for his crime. Nowhere do these folks, most of whom, by the way, have daughters, condone what he did. They just think the system messed up and a lot of things have changed. Now, they may be wrong and you may disagree, but this is not a big deal.

Personally, I plan to see Weinstein's movies if they're good and Polanski's new movie for sure. This does not make me a supporter. It just makes me an adult.

[seattle music]

An adult who values entertainment over ethics.

[Ergon]

While I can respect that the victim now wants to put it all behind her, she has settled the civil suit, Jane Doe vs Rpolanski (LATimes) The CRIMINAL case was the state of California vs Roman Polanski and there is a good reason why this is so, otherwise anyone who is rich and famous can buy his way out of serious charges. And he fled sentencing. Justice has to be seen to be done.

[blacksmithn]

Don't kid yourself. He's rich enough to buy a way out of this, too.

Maybe he'll get his just desserts, but in this country, I'm inclined to doubt it.

Justice anywhere-- but in particular, here--is a system, not a result.

[Ergon]

At another point in time, maybe. But the Swiss want to keep their banking secrecies, and let the prosecutor know when he arrived. And with the uproar, he shouldn't get away this time.

[jackbutler5555]

What is it you don't like about the U.S. Justice system? Is it presumtpion of innocence?

[sexyrexy]

you really mean those CEO's hiding their ill gotten loot in Switzerland have so much clout.. surely.. bec if they withdraw their money?? the Swiss banking will have heavy loses.

don't delude yourselves this is about justice-- this is nothing but maneuvering. by the Swiss.. to save themselves!

[Secularist]

OK, here's the problem with your "he's rich enough to buy his way out of trouble" conspiracy view. How come he hasn't done it in all this time?

[Ventoi]

Quality of life...and how young people react because of it.


I had a dream last night...'
myself and my daughter were being swung over the ocean on two ropes...
below a plane...
the man in the plane was yelling out that he'd drop us in the nearby field...
I let our snacks fall to the ground and then we jumped...
I had worried for a second they'd drop us into the water...
so I willed the plane to fly in over the land...

We were supposed to walk back to town...
but all I could see were some weathered old two story buildings in the disatance...
and some unknown dirty looking town quite a ways away...
the weather was too warm for this time of the year...

They threw a pizza box into the water as they flew away.

A dream makes no sense to the dreamer...
it makes sense perhaps to the person living it...
if the situation is a sensical one...

a child having lived through that situation...
did not get to live the sensical life...
they led the life that was no better than a dream.

[Secularist]

I had a dream last night too. It was that you stopped writing poetry.

[Ventoi]

I finally watched "Rosemary's Baby"...
Mia Farrows teeth give that comparison away.
Witches, like everthing else, have become more common (I tend to use common as the opposite of extraordinary or classy)...more common place...less organised...less, in general...and thus...even worse than in the movie.

This poor girl was missing school...
when you are a student...
when you are that age...
when they let you think about being that age...
for a moment...

that is all you will be worrying about...
she had very likely blocked the filth...
so she could go on and hold up her head...
(or had it blocked for her?)

[ErnestoChe]

Let him go. His parent died in jail at the hands of of the Nazis.

He spent his young years running for his life.

His wife and friends were murdered and left him a man without a loving family.

He had his friends. And he has some little girls that were hand delivered by their partents
in order to gain Polansti's favor.


Now after 30 years - he will face the fate that has been his nightmare for 50 years.


I'm willing ot forgive. The "victim" is willing to forgive. "Christ would hung him and hold him
in his arms". What's wrong with you people?



MOO

[blacksmithn]

So, let me get this straight.

If you evade justice long enough, and can claim a hard enough life, you can get away with anything. Or is it just certain crimes?

And my religious mumbo-jumbo is a little weak, but aren't confession, contrition and penance necessary before one can be redeemed? While arguable that he has confessed, in the form of his plea bargain, where is the contrition?

Where is the penance? Unless you want to argue that his hard life before he committed this heinous act was a sort of pre-penance. Or that somehow, evading justice for thirty years is a penance. Either way, I think you stand the concept-- and logic-- on their respective heads.

[sexyrexy]

AS YOU FORGET-- jUSTICE FROM BENT LEGAL SYSTEM!

actually, with his experience as a young boy with the Nazi's.. you don't think for a second.. this will affect his thinking on a bent system?

[mirandawilde]

Polanski raped a child and he should serve time- extra time because he's evaded justice for so long. There are MANY people in prison who have had hard times in their lives, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't serve their time. And there are millions of people who have had hard times who don't use that as an excuse to rape children.

[writer10027]

Is his directing really all that brilliant?.. really?? or is it just that they look especially brilliant against the stark contrast of the sick, abusive person he is?

I thought China Town as well done -- largely because the cast was pitch perfect -- but how could that , or ANY movie, even approach giving someone a pass for the drugging and rape-sodomy of a child??!!
This artiicle is right to point out how the raw, honest testimony of the victim have been lost in all the Polanski-centered drama. It is time for that to change.

Since the article cited is in the LA Times, maybe some of Polanski's sychophnatic apologists will read it.

[Ergon]

It was a brilliant movie because the director, the writer, the cinemaphotographer, the cast were all brilliant and it came together. Doesn't excuse rape.
But many of his apologists here are closety pedophiles or sock puppets hired by some PR company to give the impression there is public support for him.
NOT.

[leeclayton]

I live in LA and I don't know a single sychophnatic apologist.

[sexyrexy]

I live in LA and had done when this happened and I knew no one who took this case seriously when it happened.. as we knew all a bout mothers like she had..

and no one was suprised when he abscond. EITHER.. SO THERE.

[don quixote12]

Ha hahaha That's a good one.

[Ergon]

But pedophiles? I'm sure you know many.

[blacksmithn]

I live in LA and you can't turn around without bumping into a sycophantic (or sychophnatic, for that matter) apologist. It's a cottage industry. Movie studios employ them by the dozen.

[sexyrexy]

DEARIE.. you show such ignorance.. yes, you do..

he was called an auteur.. and his films were applauded decades before this incident.. even in Poland.. for KNIFE IN THE WATER.. which was his entree' to making new wave European films.. He made CUL DE SAC.. and REPULSION that broke new ground in it's day-- & made an international star of CATHERINE DENEUVE( rings a bell? as he also starred her sister FRANCIOISE DORLEAC in Cul de Sac..who died young) It was ROBERT EVANS then head of Porduction at Paramount who brought him to America.. to direct ROSEMARY'S BABY.. a famous novel at that t ime written by IRA LEVIN.

Chinatown was made in 1973 & released in 1974.

so if you are going to b e fecitious- get your facts straight!

[sexyrexy]

AND AROUND THE MID-60'S.. HE MADE that Vampire Killers.. having himself as a co-star.. when he met Sharon Tate.. also made a star of her.. ESP WHEN HE PHOTOGRAPHED HER for Playboy.. she became a pin-up gal.. prior to t hat.. she was just another starlet on the fringe. This made her a star which led to VALLEY OF THE DOLLS.

[sexyrexy]

oh yeah.. he also made a star out of Mia Farrow who until then was only known for Peyton PLace and as Sinatra's nubile wife.


needless t o say-- Polanski was a star maker-- hence why this girl's mother chased after him to meet & photograph her daughter.

[Ergon]

Leni Riefenstahl made beautiful films too. So?

[sexyrexy]

LA times.. the one??

ha.. ha.. PLAYBOY WROTE ABOUT T HIS-- just after it happened.. and all the characters involved were in place and alive.. in the early 1980's-- that's the definitive investigative report on this matter. As that report brought all the behind the scenes machinations and happenings and how Polanski even met this girl.. and it all started with HER MOTHER!

[writer10027]

ha...ha... ha, yes Playboy is a better authority than GRAND JURY testimony.