Cheat Sheet
The Best In Brief
Victim's Accusations Were Sanitized
An excavation of the various testimonies given by the girl who was raped by Roman Polanski in 1977 shows a chilling evolution of her story. The L.A. Times traces her description of the assault from her very first statements to the police, all the way through to the plea bargain that would eventually reduce the filmmaker's charges to "unlawful intercourse with a minor." The trajectory of her accusations, which grew less and less pointed with time, shows in vivid detail how a victim's story can be massaged and manipulated by the various authority figures. Cops, lawyers, judges, journalists, and others who had a stake in Polanski's freedom gradually coaxed the girl to water down her allegations (or did it themselves when documenting them), until the incident, which she had originally recounted as a terrifying ordeal, sounds almost consensual.
maluminse
OMG Normally when a witness statement changes the public cries fabrication. Now its changed because the judges were manipulating her story to set him free?? That is freaking preposeterous and grotesquely ignorant. If the judge wants to walk some one they tell the defense lawyer 'Take it to trial!' The judge says not guilty and no one can ever question that. What a pile of drivel. I dont know what or how it happened but I can say the recount by the LA times is freaking hogwash. Get a job.
MaliciousDisorder
It was a totally different time. La politics is a beast of it's own. Unlike today where you can get put on a sex offenders register for pissing a beer away in an alley sex drugs and rock and roll free love hippy style prevailed. Putting away a celeb was never heard of if you heard of it all. OJ broke that barrier but not entirely.
Twisted
I agree with your comments, this underage girl was a denizen of the sunset strip drug and sex culture she had been accused of Hooking prior to this incident Apparently her parents actually delivered her to her assignation with Polanski and they were the ones who hoped to profit from the civil suit. her parents should have been prosecuted along with polanski.
crymeariver
Thanks for the lies troll.
goddess3a
"...this underage girl was a denizen of the sunset strip drug and sex culture she had been accused of Hooking prior to this incident Apparently her parents actually delivered her to her assignation with Polanski and they were the ones who hoped to profit from the civil suit.
Where did you hear/read this, twisted? Please provide a link to these comments.
crymeariver
Samantha's testimony that day was unequivocal: She had kept trying to get away from him, putting her clothes back on, saying no repeatedly. She had made up a lie about having asthma to get out of a Jacuzzi. He persisted. She was scared. She did not physically fight him off. He began to have sex with her, then concerned she might get pregnant, switched to anal sex. When he drove her home, he told her not to tell her mom, adding, "You know, when I first met you, I promised myself I wouldn't do anything like this with you."
Along the way, various people would scrub the core allegations into something more benign -- a probation officer would deem the crime a "spontaneous" act of "poor judgment," a prison psychiatrist would call it "playful mutual eroticism."
But Samantha's stark testimony has never been seriously impugned, in or out of court. When she sued Polanski years later for sexual assault, he pleaded the 5th when asked if he illegally gave her champagne and part of a quaalude pill, then performed oral copulation on her and sodomized her.
---------------------
You mean the L.A. justice system during the 70's would work hard to scrub the testimony of a no-name 13-year old rape victim to save a famous director with a sob story? You mean average Joe's in L.A. weren't all given 42 DAYS in a pysch ward after being accused of drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13-year old kid?? I'm shocked, shocked to hear that the justice system favors the rich and famous!
chengdulaoshi
First of all, no matter how you analyze the facts of this case, the girl was a victim. Polanski was in his 40s and the girl was 13. Whether the girl had fallen into a loose lifestyle or not is irrelevant or at best mitigating evidence for the punishment phase.
13 year old girls are simply incapable of consent as a matter of law - it is the law's duty to protect children and shelter them from the predatory impulses of experienced and self-serving adults.
That said, there really needs to be some sense of proportion and restraint in the prosecution of this case, particularly in view of the fact that the incident in question occurred 32 years ago. It is not the proper role of the Courts to act as a judicial lynch mob lopping off limbs and exacting draconian vengeance to satisfy the mob's insatiable blood lust - a blood lust which, incidentally, always seems to magically dissipate when its proponent finds himself on the receiving end of the mob's rage .
Mr. Polanski owes the state 48 days of a judicially-determined sentence that was arrived at in a court of law, based on the evidence presented at the time (as a rule, the best evidence available) and heard and evaluated by the trier-of-fact. Second-guessing the trier-of-fact is a perilous enterprise, since none of us were in the courtroom and none of us had an opportunity to observe the witnesses and evaluate their candor and demeanor. Also, the complaining witness has asked that this case be dropped and her wishes deserve respect.
Besides, any efforts spent relitigating this ancient case will necessarily detract from and diminish the DA's ability to prosecute current, active cases which desperately require his attention.
The LA prosecutor owes the public a solemn duty to pursue present criminal activity that is causing real and present danger to today's children - not abscond on quixotic prosecutorial joy-rides to settle an ancient, relatively trivial judicial grudge and score points with a celebrity-obsessed public for his personal re-election bid.
zippy77
TO CHENGDULAOSHI: The LA prosecutor owns it to every woman who has been raped or will be raped to see to it that this man is sentenced, no matter what that sentence may be or how much time has passed. Victims of these crimes need to know that the perpetrators,no matter who they may be, will be brought to justice no matter HOW LONG IT TAKES. And the people who commit these crimes need to know that law inforcement and the justice system will not let them off the hook, saying--"oh well, its been a long time, just let the guy go already."
I think you must be a man...no wonder its no big deal to you--however I wonder how you'd feel if it was your daughter.
chengdulaoshi
I never suggested that the man should not be punished, and I doubt that any rational creature, regardless of their sex, would advance such an argument.
The question is one of proportion and priority. I never said it was "no big deal," what I said is that there are issues of prosecutorial discretion that have to be considered when a prosecutor decides to take resources away from prosecuting active cases (which means present day rapists and murderers potentially walk) in order to go after a 76 year old man for a crime committed 32 years ago - a crime which has already been litigated and resolved with an imposed sentence of 90 days).
At the risk of waxing pedantic, there is a reason why the criminal code is subdivided into chapter and subchapter, depending on the nature and severity of the crime. There is a reason why first offenders are treated differently from career criminals.
The reason is that all crimes are simply not the same. If all crimes *were* the same, the solution to all crimes would be simple. Just lock up the bad boys and throw away the key.
In every case, there are factual ambiguities that need to be resolved before decisions are made as to 1) whether to convict in the first instance, 2) what conviction to impose and 3) the severity of the sentence to impose. Those decisions are made in courts of law under circumstances where witnesses are sworn to tell the whole truth and subject to cross-examination to determine the veracity of their claims.
A case of statutory rape is not the same as a case of forcible rape, a case of rape through the involuntary administration of an incapacitating drug is not the same as a case where a statutory rape followed the *voluntary* ingestion of alcohol or drugs that coincidentally impaired the victim's powers of judgment. These are issues for duly-sworn fact-finders to determine according to the rules of evidence.
If the undisputed facts of the case were different, say for example Mr. Polanski administered "date rape" drugs such as GHB (gamma-amino butyric acid) or Rohypnol (flunitrazepam) to the victim, by slipping drugs into her champagne and thereby rendering her incapable of exercising her volition, then a charge of forcible rape would clearly apply.
As the known facts exist in the record however, there is ambiguity as to whether this act constituted aggravated rape, simple rape or statutory rape. And as I have said, there is no doubt that, at a minimum, statutory rape occurred here.
Fortunately, I don't need to make that determination, as a court of law has already resolved this issue. The court record shows that the fact finder (a judge in this case) found that the proven facts did not rise to the level of forcible "rape" (where such rape is defined as sexual intercourse committed by force and against the victim's will), because the Court accepted a plea of guilty to unlawful intercourse with a minor. ("statutory rape"). If the Court believed the evidence proved that Mr. Polanski was guilty of forcible rape but allowed him to plead to a much less serious charge, then the Court abdicated its sworn duty to administer justice in the case, and your grievance is against the Court, not me.
Of course, you are absolutely right. If the victim in this case were my daughter, I would not be seeking a judicial remedy for the problem. I would shoot the bastard and pay the price later. (Of course, if she were my daughter, she would not be having private photo shoots with grown men without parental supervision.)
But that's the whole reason why Courts were established in the first instance - to resolve complex issues involving ambiguous and conflicting factual claims in a fair, judicious and proportionate manner. Ours is a nation of laws, not men (or women, sorry).
Personally, I would like to see our overburdened and understaffed courts focusing on their current case load, not playing to the cameras with sexy celebrity cases from a bygone era. But I am just a citizen, so obviously my opinion doesn't count.
zippy77
The man RAPED her. I think you are just trying to show off your law school training here by going into all this statutory vs. aggravated rape stuff. The girl resisted --she said she was afraid of him--he was more than 3 times her age, He is a famous,,powerful man--it doesnt matter if she drank alcohol first--that he didn't pour it down her throat--I'm sure he didn't say "here, drink this so I can lower your capacity resist when I sodomize you", She was clearly I N T I M I D A T E D by this older man, this famous director. She said NO--over and over, She made excuses to get away--" I have asthma"--to get out of the jacuzzi--,she went into other rooms to get away from him--and all this and he still persisted in doing exactly what HE WANTED while she said NO, NO and NO. Polanski in his book calls it making love to a 13 year old--he refuses to admit or see it for what it was. I hope he IS sentenced to some time in jail and thinks about it for awhile--his thinking is twisted. Do you ever wonder why this man went on to be interested in making films like Rosemary's Baby,were a woman is raped by the Satan, and Chinatown, which in part is about a woman who is an incest victim -- and in both films neither women ultimatley triumphs over the events ? He has some psychological problems that he seems to have chosen not to address in therapy. And he did end up playing the victimizer in real life becasue of that.
This case shows us people like you still want to downplay such events. Past case, present case----should detectives just forget about all the cold case murders out there too? Come on--you just dont really think much bad happened here,You can read that article and still question if this girl wanted to have this man do this to her? You sound like Whoopi Goldberg. YES, it was rape. You don't want to see whats right there in black and white in the records. Seems you have sympathy for the guy that you hide behind all your talk about legalities. Polanskis influence--as an aritst AS WELL AS in temrs of his moral standards has had great influence on other artists--for the worse we see based on all the people that called for him to go free. He has convinced many people that forcing an underage girl is an artists perogative--look at all the people defending the great 'artiste' which is shameful. I hope they wake up and see how screwed up their moral outlook is and where their priorities are. If he doesnt get away with it, this case will have served an important purpose in a lot of ways and even Polanski could come out of it a better person if he would just face up to what he did for what it really is. One last chance for him to end his life with some integrity instead of being another "great artist" who is a really lousy human and immoral person who nevertheless spreads his lousy moral inflluece throughout the culture.
chengdulaoshi
I'm sorry, you are absolutely right. My legal training has gotten in the way of my ability to think hysterically about the facts.
You raise a legitimate point. The fact that Mr. Polanski went on to direct "Rosemary Baby" and then "China Town" is proof positive that this experience hasn't changed him in the least.
It is clear now to me that, since he went on to produce such Academy Award winning trash, he still must harbor ongoing impulses to rape and defile, despite the best efforts of the court system to reform this sick bastard, and despite the fact that there has been no alleged acts of recidivism on his part.
The only flaw with this hypothesis is that "Rosemary's Baby" was produced in 1968, and "China Town" was produced in 1974 - nine and three years *prior* to the case under review.
Come to think of it, I am surprised that the both screenplays weren't admitted into evidence at trial - perhaps to prove motive. Might actually fly in LA!
It is good, though, that you cite the Grand Jury testimony as proof of the extent of Polanski's guilt in this matter. I also would accord the Grand Jury testimony a great deal of weight, if not for the minor problem that it is inadmissible at trial and irrelevant for purposes of determining guilt.
Turns out that the purpose of the Grand Jury is to determine probable cause, not guilt. That means that a witness' testimony before the Grand Jury is not evidence to be admitted at trial - its only legitimate function at trial is use by the Defense for impeachment purposes - to show that the witness' testimony is not credible because it is inconsistent with her Grand Jury account.
You might be as shocked as I was to discover that the folks who set up this country gave the accused the right to confront his accuser (see Sixth Amendment), which means that Grand Jury testimony, since it has not been tested by the wholly-annoying and pointless process of cross-examination, simply is not proof of guilt.
All Grand Jury testimony is, it turns out, is one person's version of events that may or may not be true - because no one has ever been given the opportunity to question it or challenge it in any way, shape or form.
I myself have been party witness to many cases where prosecutors have decided to drop cases or reduce charges when they heard Grand Jury testimony that revealed that a witness' story was inconsistent with the known facts or incredible.
But obviously, this wasn't the case here, since the prosecutor refused to cut Polanski any breaks and insisted on taking the case to trial on the original charges. Otherwise, the prosecutor might have settled on some compromise verdict like a reduced plea and a 90 day jail sentence. Wait a minute, that *is* what happened in this case.
BTW, if you are mad at me, you should really be mad at this remarkably insensitive participant in the original trial, who has nothing good to say about the LA Prosecutor, the LA Courts or the media for resurrecting this matter after 32 years.
"People don't understand that the judge went back on his word. They don't know how unfairly we were all treated by the press. Talk about feeling violated! The media made that year a living hell and I've been trying to put it behind me ever since."
"I have become a victim of the actions of the district attorney."
Those words are from Samantha Geimer, the victim in the case. Talk about ingratitude! You'd think the woman would at least have the decency to appreciate what our selfless LA prosecutor is trying to accomplilsh for her here.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.