Roman Polanski's Wife: He's A 'Marvelous Husband' & 'Impeccable Man'

PARIS — Film director Roman Polanski's wife said she "understands perfectly" that women have been shocked by the 32-year-old sex case revived by her husband's sudden arrest in Switzerland.

But she added in an interview with Elle magazine appearing Friday that in the 1970s, when the crime occurred, society viewed sex and drugs in a different light.

"My personal truth is that Roman is a marvelous husband and man," said actress Emmanuelle Seigner, 43. "He is an impeccable man and I have nothing to reproach him for."

The 76-year-old Polanski, who has two young children, is fighting extradition to the United States. The director was initially accused of raping a 13-year-old girl after plying her with champagne and a Quaalude pill during a 1977 modeling shoot. He pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse, then fled to France on the eve of sentencing in 1978.

"My husband never believed he was above the law. The proof is that he pleaded guilty...," she said.

Polanski was arrested in Switzerland on his way to a film festival in September. He was jailed for more than 60 days before being placed under house arrest Dec. 4 in Gstaad, Switzerland.

The woman who was the child victim at the time, Samantha Geimer, is supporting a motion by Polanski's lawyers urging that the director be sentenced to time served then – 42 days in a California prison for psychiatric evaluation.

Geimer's attorney, Lawrence Silver, faxed that position to other lawyers Wednesday, asking that Polanski be sentenced in absentia.

The director's wife said the 1970s were a "crazy time."

"The relationship to drugs wasn't the same, the relationship to sexual liberty and permissiveness neither," she said. "Today, public opinion has considerably evolved on the subjects."

Seigner described her personal horror after her husband's arrest.

She said she has had the impression of "falling into a well like Alice in Alice in Wonderland," and that each day the fall has been "slow and regular ... and this long fall won't stop."

Switzerland has not yet decided whether to honor the extradition request.

Comments

[Jack Wilson]

09:01 PM on 01/25/2010

We can assume, I hope, that YWCH is under sedation and restraint.

[DreamWeaver2nd]

10:59 PM on 01/25/2010

Herb Alpert and Lani Hall put on a show here Saturday night. They seem ageless!
Portland could not get enough of them and their music.
The ease and natural grace between the two is wonderful to see.
Here they are in the good old days,1980. I hope you enjoy as I do...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn2ktnd5CUk

[Jack Wilson]

11:34 PM on 01/25/2010

Lovely stuff. Herb is a great musician and a great guy. Getting back to Chet Baker for a bit, though, did you ever see "Let's Get Lost"? His performance of Elvis Costello's "Almost Blue" is incredibly beautiful.

[picott]

12:17 PM on 01/26/2010

YWCH, the fine, upstanding gentleman who wanted to spell 'twit' with an "a"
and who was so upset with the 'vanishing' of one of his immortal statements
that he accused an innocent poster of flagging him down (and called him/her
"P*ssy") has been active since 9 a.m. on the Media page, item: "Sexism".
I'm not kidding.
After what must have been a good sleep, he sounds like more of the same,
and I'm pleased to report that he has managed to hold on to a few capital
letters.

[Jack Wilson]

02:03 PM on 01/26/2010

Odd indeed that his comments on "sexism" don't contain more references to female anatomy. I guess that subject doesn't turn him on as much as this one.

[YesWeCouldHave]

06:34 PM on 01/27/2010

Somehow, foul language offends you, but the ra.pe of children does not.

No, I'm done with you guys. Don't get me wrong, I pity the children in your lives, but...oh well...

M*lest away.

[clevernamehere]

05:45 PM on 01/24/2010

There is a lot of confusion on this thread.

Polanski's victim has always described what happened as rape, most notably in her 2003 op-ed
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/23/opinion/oe-geimer23

Polanski was originally charged with rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy. He later pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse in a plea bargain, before running jumping bail http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jZwpKWWiHPDqXm77p6LU9eMKvWtw

Since suing him in civil court, the victim has advocated for letting the case go http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/victim-in-roman-polanksi-rape-case-expected-to-testify-on-his-behalf-in-la-courtroom.html in part because she finds the publicity very mentally stressful http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/26/samantha-geimer-polanskis_n_334342.html

It is unclear whether or not he has ever paid her the $500,000 she won in civil court. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/03/local/me-polanski3

Roman Polanski has admitted to having a thing for young girls http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaeldeacon/100011795/roman-polanski-everyone-else-fancies-little-girls-too/ Shortly after he jumped bail in the rape case, he was dating 15 year old Natasha Kinski http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2712371.stm

[YesWeCouldHave]

05:54 PM on 01/24/2010

There is NO confusion.

They know full well what he did, they are simply trying to leave themselves room to defend him without having to acknowledge how they do so against ALL logic and decency.

Thank you for not allowing them such wiggle room.

There is NO defending what Polanski did.

[picott]

07:08 PM on 01/24/2010

RP's provocative and bitter conversation with a British writer is subject to interpretation, despite the commercial title of the article which you quote. 'Young girl' ("jeune fille" in French) is the opposite of 'child'. His attraction to young women was a fact. (It was also known about the judge himself). But he never showed any interest for what is known in the U.S. as "little girls". No, Roman Polanski is no Lewis Carroll.
Finally, please verify N Kinsky's birth date and review your analysis.

[clevernamehere]

07:26 PM on 01/24/2010

Whether or not he meant young women, the quote comes from an interview about the 13 year old, not his general dating habits.

You have to really stretch to call a 13 year old a young woman.

Natasha Kinski was born in 1961. They before and during the filming of (1979). Natasha would have been 18 in 1979, but 16-17 when they were filming. Several sources say they dated when she was 15, including Polanski's own memoir:
http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/01/polanskis-many-detractors

So, I was wrong about the dates in that Polanski was dating Natasha prior to the rape, but she was still 15 when they first had sex.

Having a thing for girls who are not yet none with puberty isn't pedophilia, but it isn't some benign little thing like liking redheads.

[YesWeCouldHave]

07:56 PM on 01/24/2010

So, you are in fact defending Polanski's right to put his pe.nis inside 13 year old girls.

Wow.

[jackbutler5555]

02:09 PM on 01/24/2010

There is an inexplicable shortage of capital letters here. So, I have been asked to explain to you the problem and request your cooperation in the prudent use of the upper case for the next day or so. The capital letter warehouse in Woodland Hills is closed today. AH has a call into them to see if they could open up and send a truckload of the caps as soon as possible.

These are valley people. So, I'm not sure they will understand the urgency. In any case, when the upper case is resupplied, we will investigate the cause in the belief that there may be some here who are using more than their share.

Your cooperation will be appreciated.

[jackbutler5555]

06:38 PM on 01/25/2010

Here's the latest on the upper case shortage.

The use of capital letters has declined during the day on Monday. Initially, there was an increase in the use of the caps here, That was interpreted to mean that it was a form of protest. However, during the day today, capitalization was limited to the first word of sentences and proper nouns. Your cooperation is appreciated.

But that's just the good news. The bad news is that that warehouse in the valley delivered the shipment of capitals to the L.A. Times instead. The Times is saying they're going to keep them just in case the viral cause of the shortage here spreads across town to The Times. The warehouse has alerted the Sacramento factory to increase production of the upper case. (In case you're interested, Bakersfield manufactures the lower case letters.)

They are trying to fulfill the order working 24/7. But things in California's Capitol move slowly. So, it looks like realistically it's Friday when there will be a balance between supply and demand. So, on a selective basis, HP monitors will be inspecting the contents of posts with the goal of assuring that no one uses more than are necessary.

[jackbutler5555]

04:25 PM on 01/27/2010

Apparently, the shortage of capital letters has abated. Whatever the cause, it is no longer operative.

However, the resupply has caused a few problems. The publisher has had to stack cases of the upper case in her office. Holding meetings there have been a problem with the growth of the staff and all. Now with the boxes in the way, some late arriving staff members have had to stand in the hall. As a group, the staff is easily distracted. Some have been playing with their Blackberries out in the corridor where they can't be detected..

You can help by overcapitalizing your postings. I'll tell you when there's a balance between supply and demand. Please be sure to YELL at each other from time to time. Your cooperation thus far has been exemplary.

[YesWeCouldHave]

12:27 PM on 01/24/2010

"A western Pennsylvania mother has been charged with giving her 13-year-old daughter drugs and alcohol so the woman’s boyfriend could get the girl pregnant, police said Thursday.

Shana Brown, 32, is no longer able to have children but wanted to have a baby with her current boyfriend, Duane Calloway, said Uniontown Police Det. Donald Gmitter. The pair decided to drug the girl so Calloway, 40, could have sex with her without her knowledge, he added."

http://guyism.com/2009/04/mom-drugs-13-year-old-daughter-so-boyfriend-can-impregnate-her.html

PERHAPS, you'd care to defend this woman, TOO?

[picott]

01:19 PM on 01/24/2010

Yes We Could Have:
I see your 'handle' and I interpret it as the expression of a feeling
of disappointment - from the "Yes We Can" ideals.
I read your obsessive posts (how much have you narrowed your scope?)
and I can't help noticing that you do not get enough sleep (the time-
stamps on your comments).
If you had studied the case on which you direct your single focus,
you would have noticed that the victim was not 100% sure that RP
knew she was under 14. (Larry King interview).
You would wonder why Judge Rittenband's first reaction was:
"Another mother-daughter hooker team!" (quoted by the Santa
Monica journalist who saw him often);
and you would research why 'they' released him after 7 weeks
when he was supposed to spend 90 days at Chino. ('They'
had fears about his life).
Then, you'd realize that this case has nothing to do with the 100's
of current and actual child molestation cases which won't be tried,
the "System" not having the financial resources.

[YesWeCouldHave]

01:30 PM on 01/24/2010

A- My "obsession" is simply me being dumbfounded that people are willing to defend this man.

B- The fact that the judge and prosecution did awful jobs in this case ONLY proves my point...we have a very broken system.

Instead of defending it or shrugging your shoulders, we should FIX it.

C- So, if a rich man can run to Europe and hire a lot of expensive lawyers and try to bankrupt the system, he should be able to escape justice?

You are joking, right?

[YesWeCouldHave]

08:07 PM on 01/24/2010

You ARE joking, right?

[YesWeCouldHave]

03:50 PM on 01/24/2010

You could argue that this woman's motives were far more noble than putting a 13 year old on the casting couch.

She wanted a baby. Everyone likes babies, right?

So why will you not defend THIS woman?

[jackbutler5555]

09:51 AM on 01/24/2010

There have been claims here that the victim doesn't have a role in the sentencing of Polanski.

That's wrong.

The victim's attorney has had a seat at the table discussing the appropriate disposition of the case from the beginning. That lawyer sat with the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney. All, including the judge, ehad agreed on a sentence and, as the prosecutor said at the time, he was persuaded by the victim's attorney to accept the lesser plea and sentence.

And now, Marsy's law enter into the picture. Proposition 9 was just passed, strngthening the role of the victim in the deliberations.

For the prosecutor, it makes pragmatic sense. If the victim doesn't cooperate with the prosecutor, it would weaken his case.

[YesWeCouldHave]

10:24 AM on 01/24/2010

You are ok with a system where a man can drug and an.ally r.ape a 13 year old girl and do 42 days in jail?

You think that is fair and just?

[jackbutler5555]

10:50 AM on 01/24/2010

You're a one-trick pony. I discuss the legal basis for a victim's right to p[participate in the legal process. You trot out your mantra.

That's why I believe you're in over your head.

[believethelie]

08:46 AM on 01/24/2010

The victim in this case is an adult now, she seems to possess great intelligence and amazing composure considering what she is dealing with.

She is able to articulate and does so with a depth of admirable character.

The victim's wishes do matter; and to push her aside is cruel.

[YesWeCouldHave]

08:52 AM on 01/24/2010

Do you understand how mole.estaton permanently rewires a person's brain?

Do you have any idea how much TRAUMA was inflicted upon the girl he ra.ped?

Victims have NO ability to make rational decisions about their VICTIMIZERS...which is why the victim does not determine justice.

EVEN if she wanted him to get a parade...he is STILL a criminal.

We don't allow burglars to roam free to ROB MORE HOUSES just because the last guy he robbed is ok with it.

We do not allow murderers to roam free to KI.LL more people if their last victim is forgiving.

He is a ra.pist.

Ra.pists must be taken off the streets to protect soci.ety.

Is there NO length you will not go to to protect this man?

You must have REALLY liked Chinatown.

[picott]

10:28 AM on 01/24/2010

What I understand is that your preoccupation with RP is patently pathological.
And highly suspicious. I have read discourses not unlike yours, which came
from persons suffering from an intense feeling of guilt.
You display evidence of a trauma which would necessitate urgent rewiring of
your brain (if such a sci-fi notion existed in reality).
With your sort of insanity, there isn't any point defending Mr. Polanski.

[YesWeCouldHave]

09:03 AM on 01/24/2010

"The victim's wishes do matter; and to push her aside is cruel."

You mean like the victims's WISHES to NOT be drugged or r.aped in the a$$ when they were 13 years old?

That was pretty cruel.

So why do you guys keep excusing it?

A day ago I thought it was just moral relativism in the hands of simple minds...

Now, I'm genuinely worried about the kids in your life...

[YesWeCouldHave]

06:47 AM on 01/24/2010

Polanski defenders...

Please EXPLAIN the other circumstances in which it is OK to drug and r/ape 13 year old girls.

We have already gotten if you are a famous director in a hot tub....

What else?

[believethelie]

08:27 AM on 01/24/2010

Act III, Scene II, of Hamlet.
"QUEEN. The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[YesWeCouldHave]

08:31 AM on 01/24/2010

I understand that you don't comprehend this, but...

There is NO such thing as protesting the rap.e of children TOO much.

You are a sick individual with reprehensi.ble morality who should not be allowed to have or be near children. I would have real questions about the men you would allow into their lives.

[believethelie]

09:31 PM on 01/23/2010

What is really going on here is that the victim in this case is not behaving the way the lynch mob would choose. How terribly inconvenient for the troglodyte members of the lynch party.

I can only imagine how you would champion her wishes, if and only if she would just say what is convenient for you.

The victim's wishes do matter; and to push her aside is cruel.

[clevernamehere]

04:24 AM on 01/24/2010

No private citizens are hunting Polanski down in the streets of Switzerland, so your lynch party claims are off base.

Victims do not get to decide what happens to their attackers. The reason is there are a million reasons that can make the victim not want to go forward- fear of retribution, a desire to get out of the spotlight, etc. It doesn't change the fact that a crime was committed.

You're asking for special privileges to be given to this case, despite the defendant's complete disregard for the law.

[YesWeCouldHave]

06:19 AM on 01/24/2010

Name ONE other r.apist you have EVER defended.

You have bent logic into a pretzel so the one man could be excused for an.ally ra.ping a 13 year old girl whom he had dr.ugged.

As MANY of us have explained to you 100 times, the victim does NOT get to decide.

Do you also think beaten wives should be allowed to decide if their abusive husbands go to jail?

Also, NO ONE is lynching Polanski. Would I be happy if he gets sha.nked in prison? Sure. But all anyone here has called for is a SOCIETY WHERE child r/apists do more than 42 days in jail.

I'd like to see them do a lifetime plus 42 days.

You are either a starf*cker or a childf*cker, which one is it?

[believethelie]

08:30 AM on 01/24/2010

so that would make your spouse a wankerf*cker

[WonderfulLife]

05:24 PM on 01/23/2010

"My personal truth is that Roman is a marvelous husband and man"

Translation: I know he wouldn't have married me if I had been unattractive and a woman his age and he knows I wouldn't have married him if he hadn't had a ton of money. We both went after what was important to each one of us. Appearances is everything to the shallow and self absorbed.

[jackbutler5555]

11:48 AM on 01/24/2010

How do you know? Or are you merely attacking people with whom you disagree? Why don't you dispute what your opponents are saying, using substance.

[WonderfulLife]

05:06 PM on 01/23/2010

Isn't it amazing that I and millions of other people lived through those crazy times and even at our highest times-none of us ever developed an interest in having an intimate relationship with a child. Perhaps if his wife wasn't an infant at the time-she would be a better authority of the 70's.

Inhibitions may be lowered while under the influence-but they are supplanted with ones of which you are totally adverse to...unless you weren't adverse to them to begin with.
Enough with the excuses...explanations...blah...blah...blah.
It is what it is and no amount of justifying changes that.

[WonderfulLife]

05:07 PM on 01/23/2010

Sorry, meant to say "they AREN'T supplanted"

[dim]

03:55 PM on 01/23/2010

A lot of commenters are bringing up child rape in this context. At least put aside your lynch mob mentality for a few minutes to get the factual aspects of the case right. 1. Child molestation is not the same as unlawful intercourse with a minor. The difference between a child and a minor is puberty. 2. In this case the victim is very clear about the fact that she did not consider what transpired to be rape, nor was Polanski charged with rape.

[momstudent]

04:35 PM on 01/23/2010

She was 13!!!!! She is not legally allowed an opinion if it was rape or not. A 13 year old does not have the proper decision making skills. .. He pleaded everything down which would never happen now .Puberty is a biological process, not a cognitive process. Please learn how the brain functions. Perhaps the victim did not consider it rape at the time because nobody supported and or educated her about rape. Enough. It is not acceptable to do what he did.

[clevernamehere]

05:58 PM on 01/23/2010

Now, after years of pressure, public rehashing and a civil suit she is still waiting for Polanski to pay, she has made some comments saying that it wasn't as traumatic as people say.

But that doesn't change the fact that what she described was rape or that Polanski was charged with rape. The fact that he pled down before he ran away does not change the fact that the grand jury charged him with rape.

[jackbutler5555]

12:31 PM on 01/24/2010

Polanski paid, rumors to the contrary notwithstanding. But it was a slow pay, from what can be learned.

He was charged with unlawful sex. The purpose of the Grand Jury system is to give prosecutors leverage in plea bargaining. Force could not be proved. Administering drugs could not be proved. Anal sex could not be proved.

In a trial, where the defendant is assumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury would be stuck with a she-says, he-says. The Grand Jury, which as you know only hears the prosecution side, is irrelevant.

He admitted to the unlawful sex even though that could not be corroborated. He has since admitted to the unlawful sex without the coercion of a plea bargain. This was a good deal for the prosecution and a good deal for Polanski. That's the makings of a plea bargain. If the prosecution had the goods on Polanski, they would have no incentive for a deal.

[LMPE]

03:00 PM on 01/23/2010

People change. Roman Polanski used to be a playboy, as Vincent Bugliosi noted in "Helter Skelter". I don't doubt that now he's probably a faithful husband.

[YesWeCouldHave]

03:22 PM on 01/23/2010

If a murd.erer is a faithful husband, should we not arrest him?

[WonderfulLife]

05:13 PM on 01/23/2010

So your message is to all those who are currently taking advantage of children-don't worry if you get caught because all you need to do is flee prosecution and hid out for a while.
Then somewhere down the line you can make the argument "Hey, I've changed" and everything will be forgiven.

[YesWeCouldHave]

06:23 AM on 01/24/2010

Not to all of those taking advantage of children...

NOTICE, there have been other threads of non-famous people who mo.lested kids here on HuffPo...

NEVER seen ANYONE defend those perpetrators.

Just this ONE.

[momstudent]

02:05 PM on 01/23/2010

Polanski needs to be sent back to the States and he should either accept whatever sentence is given to him or ask for a new trial and wait in the county jail. My belief is he never should have been offered any type of deal in the first place. This is not about what his victim wants. This is about Polanski targeting a 13 year old girl by speaking to her mother, drugging her, giving her alcohol, taking nude pictures of her, and raping her in ways a 13 year old girl had no idea was possible. As for his current wife my professor had a saying (don't know original author)...'when the need to believe increases...all reasoning ceases'.. I will never pay to see another film by all of the directors that singed their protest letter. Also, because an individual has trauma in their lives does not excuse their actions. Polanski is a predator and his JOB is in film making. No more.

[dim]

03:40 PM on 01/23/2010

To not consider the victim's wishes is just plain cruelty.

[clevernamehere]

05:59 PM on 01/23/2010

The victim's wishes are not normally a part of criminal proceedings.

[YesWeCouldHave]

06:49 AM on 01/24/2010

You mean like the victims's WISHES to NOT be drugged or r.aped in the a$$ when they were 13 years old?

That was pretty cruel.

So why do you guys keep excusing it?

[tkondaks]

01:10 PM on 01/23/2010

Last night, 20/20 had a show on a 16-year-old who is suing Starbucks because she had sex with her 24-year-old Starbucks manager. The sex was consensual, it occured numerous times, the girl lived at home with her parents (so it wasn't like she would have been out on the streets if she would have been fired from the job), and there were no drugs involved (at least not the type that Polanski's victim was subject to).

The 24-year-old manager served 4 months in jail. That's about 120 days.

Of course it is hard to compare the two cases but the 42 days that Polanski got seems a tad on the light side.

[YesWeCouldHave]

01:27 PM on 01/23/2010

Go on ANY other thread about a crime towards a child like this and you will find NO ONE defending that criminal.

Polanski, they defend.

Same with the prosecution. Which is why the judge tossed it.

[believethelie]

01:31 PM on 01/23/2010

wrong

[wndrwrthg]

11:19 AM on 01/23/2010

When did society change its attitude on child rape? Would she be so glib if he raped her children? Oh, wait... he probably has.

[Jack Wilson]

12:14 PM on 01/23/2010

Polanski and his victim of 30 years ago live 8000 miles away from each other. How do you come up with the "sending battered wives back to their husbands" parallel?

[wndrwrthg]

01:41 PM on 01/23/2010

His wife's children.

[sexyrexy]

02:17 PM on 01/23/2010

DAMN..YOU'RE A TWIT.

DIDN'T IT OCCUR TO YOU-- he's the father of her kids?!

[wndrwrthg]

03:11 PM on 01/23/2010

Which means he cannot rape them? You dear child,are the twit.