MovieChat Forums > Roman Polanski Discussion > Female artist claims Roman Polanski sexu...

Female artist claims Roman Polanski sexually abused her aged 10, after photographing her naked draped in a fur coat


Roman Polanski - News, Rumors & Gossip
AN ARTIST has accused movie director and convicted child rapist Roman Polanski of taking photos of her naked on a deserted beach wearing an open fur coat before sexually molesting her when she was just 10-years-old. Speaking for the first time, ... read full story on The Sun

reply

AN ARTIST has accused movie director and convicted child rapist Roman Polanski of taking photos of her naked on a deserted beach wearing an open fur coat before sexually molesting her when she was just 10-years-old.

Since then three other women have since come forward to accuse the firm director of sexually assaulting them when they were teenagers.

Brit actress Charlotte Lewis accused Polanksi of “forcing” himself on her when she was 16 in 1982.

And a woman named as Robin M reported to authorities in Los Angeles County that she was sexually assaulted by Polanki in 1973 when she was 16.

Earlier this month a German actress Renate Langer, now 61, filed a complaint to Swiss authorities accusing Polanksi of raping her when she was 15.

Shockingly, Weinstein, who has been accused of sexually harassing or abusing over 40 women, came out in defense of Polanski in 2009, claiming: "Whatever you think about the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time. "A deal was made with the judge, and the deal is not being honored."

reply

So now I'll tackle your posting here:

The "artist's" assertions have been addressed in the post below. The other accuser who claims Polanski assaulted her in 1969 can also be discounted by the details I provided below.

Charlotte Lewis: Claims the event happened in 1982, however, she filmed "Pirates" with the director throughout 1986, then appeared with him in Cannes in 1987 when the film debuted. She was very friendly with him, including allowing him to hug her. Picture below says it all:

http://78.media.tumblr.com/b21dcde321656c465a227b0cff1b86f1/tumblr_orrgzrF2Or1tpppzvo1_1280.png

In 1989 Lewis said this: “I knew that Roman had done something bad in the United States, but I wanted to be his mistress. I wanted him probably more than he wanted me. I’d love to have had a romantic relationship with [Polanski], and a physical one. You can’t help falling in love with him. But he didn’t want me that way.” She can't have it both ways by saying he raped her, then saying he didn't want her sexually. Which is it? So number three knocked down.

Robin M has no evidence of her ever meeting Polanski. He was back in Los Angeles to film "Chinatown" and was with friends who can attest to his character in that he didn't have any relationships with anyone during that time. Most of his encounters were with young women in Europe.

Renate Langer's claims were fully investigated by Swiss authorities and he was cleared and no charges filed due to the Statute of Limitations expiring.

Actress Edith Vogelhut claimed Polanski anally raped her in the "bedroom" at Jack Nicholson's house in 1973. The "bedroom" was a television room with a couch and Nicholson's has stated, "That bitch has never been inside my house."

As for the deal with the judge in 1977/78, the original prosecutor Roger Gunson has stated in a deposition that is currently under seal with the Los Angeles Supreme Court, that Roman Polanski owes no more time to the State of California after dutifully serving 42 days under the guidance of the officials at Chino State Prison. That was the agreed on time, however, no prison or jail time was asked by Samantha Geimer or her parents regarding the case. So what Weinstein said is correct.

Any other questions I'll be happy to answer since I have all the documents from the case.

reply


<< The "bedroom" was a television room with a couch and Nicholson's has stated, "That bitch has never been inside my house." >>

Wait ... you want us to believe Mr. Nicholson knows every person who's been in and out of his house, ever? I wouldn't be able to claim that, and I'm not even a superstar pothead.
.

reply

Ah, I would think either he or his caretaker would. According to both Vogelhut has never seen the inside of Nicholson's home. Vogelhut called that room a "bedroom". That room is not a bedroom it's a television room as written in the police reports from the case. See, that's what happens when you have the stuff in your hot little hands.

reply

So you would "think" either Nicholson or his employee would remember every person who'd been inside of his house would recall them. How much credence does "I would think" hold up, in your opinion, were someone of an opposing opinion to say it? Right, not any.

Nicholson's house was widely known as the ultimate wild party house, in a town already renown for wild parties, with people regularly coming and going, and drugs flowing freely, *including* Nicholson himself frequently being high more often than not. Add to that Polankski being his bud, with easy access to Nicholson's house, and Nicholson hardly being someone known as one of possessing integrity and honesty.

His caretaker was his employee, on his payroll. Do you seriously think such a person would be aware of the comings and goings of every single person, night and day, for however many years s/he worked there, in a large house known as a wild party house? Even if it were possible that s/he could be, which strains credulity to the breaking point, do you think they'd go against their employer and say yes, they recall Vogulhut being there?

What difference does it make if she described it as a television room or a bedroom, if she was sexually assaulted in it? Nicholson's house is described as being an 8-bedroom house, not a 7-bedroom house with a TV room. It may have appeared to her as a bedroom, rather than say a living room, kitchen, or so forth.

reply

There is a couch in the TV Room and a TV. No bed. I would think a bedroom would have a bed and an ensuite or bathroom. I don't know where you come from but for it to be considered a bedroom it has to have a closet and a bathroom nearby. It does not have a closet. Therefore it was made into a TV Room. Vogelhut described it as a bedroom. Samantha Geimer said there was a huge leather couch and a stool in it, with a TV. She has never described it as a bedroom. EVER! The police when the made out their reports never referred to it as a bedroom. They have described it solidly as a TELEVISION ROOM! Vogelhut claimed to have been invited by Nicholson to the party "that night" it happened. Nicholson said he never invited HER to his home. Ever. The "caretaker" was not his employee, she was a friend who housesat for him and her name is Helena Kallianiotes, a fellow actress and very good friend who Nicholson trusted with the keys to his house. Integrity and honesty from Vogelhut who had a book to sell? Sorry that immediately negates her "honesty" and "integrity". With all that "honesty" and "integrity" Vogelhut should have come forward at the time of the Geimer affair. As what she claims happened to her happened in 1973. So as a woman back then, don't you think she should have come forward instead of breaking this little news item riiiiiiight before her book is released? Yep, thought so.

reply

Okay, first, where are you getting that she alleges the repeated anal rape took place in the same room Samantha Geimer's anal rape took place? All Vogelhut has said was it happened in *a* bedroom in Nicholson's house, which was the same house where Polanski raped Geimer.

She doesn't claim Nicholson invited her, she claims Polanski did.

It was you who referred to the caretaker, so I don't know why now you're putting it in quotes, as you're quoting yourself.

Fine, she was his friend. Who also gave her services in exchange for living in his guesthouse. The point remains: she had motivation to back up her long-time friend, with whom she stood to gain something from, or lose. Nicholson, a notorious slut who claims to have slept with 2000 women, was a notorious druggie, and Polanski's buddy.

On Helena Kallianiotes:

"The only woman around is ex- belly dancer Helena Kallianiotes, 78. She starred with him in 1970’s Five Easy Pieces, moved into his guest house and never left."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/2668644/jack-nicholson-retires-from-hollywood-wild-past-2000-lovers/

"Kallianiotes, who appeared with Nicholson in the 1970 film Five Easy Pieces, moved into his guesthouse decades ago and has never left. She now acts as his de facto butler, housekeeper and property manager.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2913870/Jack-Nicholson-pays-lonely-price-treating-women-like-dirt.html#ixzz56LP3spt7

There are only two links anywhere that claim Nicholson said "That bitch has never been inside my house." Both of them are yours, on MovieChat.

Are you seriously saying that in your mind just because someone's written a book, that instantly negates all credibility? Wow. I believe she goes into the rape in one chapter of her book. That's it. She's already stated very clearly why she's speaking out now, why she hadn't spoken out or reported this for years, and it makes sense to me; it's very common with rape/sexual abuse victims.

BTW, I now know to first factcheck before responding to your posts, rather than accepting what you post and responding to that.

reply

"The "artist's" assertions have been addressed in the post below. The other accuser who claims Polanski assaulted her in 1969 can also be discounted by the details I provided below."

Why would you put "artist's" in quotes? She is an artist. Are you unaware that her mentor and teacher, Françoise Gilot, was a well respected artist, and that she herself has had legitimate showings? Could it be you did that in an attempt to discredit her? Surely not! Why would you refer to her as a "woman," in quotes? Can't be that your prejudice is showing that you deny her even her gender.

While I disagree that publicity shots, which are common, indicate anything of importance, I do agree Charlotte Lewis discredited herself by saying she wanted a romantic relationship with Polanski, so I discount her entirely.

Re: Robin M, I have friendly acquaintances with whom, if it came down to having to prove it in a court, I couldn't prove we've ever met. I've met any number of celebrities, and couldn't prove it if I had to. This is hardly uncommon, and hardly proof they did not meet, or that he did not sexually molest her.

Re: Renate Langer, she thought there were no statues of limitation, but somehow it turns out there were, as far as prosecution goes, so of course no charges were filed against him. Proving nothing.

(cont'd)

reply

This "woman" is a liar. She claims her "event" happened in 1969. Let's examine shall we?

January 1969: Came back from Europe with wife Sharon Tate and took up residence in the Chateau Mormont.

February 1969: Readying the film "The Day of the Dolphin" as well as moving into 10050 Cielo Drive from which he continued to ready the film. Later that month he flew to London, England to continue prep work on said film.

March 1969: Spent most of his time in London, England at his Mews house continuing to work on the script for "Day of the Dolphin" with friends and co-workers Gene Gutowski, Warren Beatty, Michael Sarne, Andrew Braunsberg and others. His wife Sharon Tate flew to Rome, Italy the end of March.

April 1969: Continues work on the film "Day of the Dolphin" with aforementioned friends awaiting wife Sharon Tate to join him in London, England after concluding work on her film "12+1".

May 1969: Continues work on film "Day of the Dolphin" with aforementioned friends awaiting wife Sharon Tate to join him in London, England after concluding work on her film "12+1".

June 1969: Continues work on film "Day of the Dolphin" with aforementioned friends. Wife Sharon Tate joins him near the end of June after completing work on her film "12+1".

July 1969: Continues work on film "Day of the Dolphin" with aforementioned friends, enjoying time with pregnant wife Sharon Tate attending various events and enjoying time with friends until Sharon Tate sets sail on Queen Mary II for the United States around 10th of July.

August 1969: Continues working on film "Day of the Dolphin" with aforementioned friends until the morning of the 9th when he receives a phone call from business manager William Tennant breaking news to him his pregnant wife, Sharon Tate and three friends Jay Sebring, Voytek Frykowski and Abigail Folger have been murdered at his home at 10050 Cielo Drive in Los Angeles. Is sedated that day and spends most of the next two days in seclusion under sedation until the 12th when he returns to the United States with friends Gene Gutowski, Warren Beatty and Andrew Braunsberg. August 18th (Polanski's birthday) he spends attending funerals of his wife, and friends in Los Angeles and also undergoing investigation for the murders including a lie detector examination by Detective Earl Deemer who asks him if he's committed any crimes to which Polanski answers: "No". He is still under care from a doctor and still under sedation. He is officially cleared of any suspicion in the murders of his wife and friends by the Los Angeles Police Department, but then is undergoing a private investigation by his father-in-law Colonel Paul Tate a member of the intelligence department of the United States Army. After a full investigation using all avenues at his disposal, Colonel Paul Tate clears Polanski of any involvement in Sharon's murder and finds no other crimes he's committed. This is after a full investigation. Polanski is brought in by the LAPD in order to help them with the investigation of the murders of his wife and friends and given a kit to take blood samples from his friends' cars or homes for the discovery of blood from any of the victims. This investigation continues in which Polanski is under close coordination with the LAPD. This continues through ....

September 1969: Polanski continues his work with the LAPD to discover his wife's murderers, the LAPD keeps Polanski within close observations during this time citing no incidences of anything illegal.

October 1969: On the 10th of the month, Sheriff's deputies raided two ranches in Death Valley after tips from two sources regarding the Manson Family who were responsible for the seven Tate-LaBianca murders. The case is broken. After again passing scrutiny from the LAPD and his own father-in-law, Polanski signs away his rights to Sharon Tate's estate and gives away all of Sharon's belongings and his own, packing one bag and leaves Los Angels and the United States for Italy to spend time with friends.

Throughout the rest of 1969 November and December, Roman Polanski never sets foot back on American soil as is noted by his vagabond life throughout Europe with friends and visiting his family in France.

According to many biographies and his own autobiography he never sets foot back in the States until he is contracted to direct the film "Chinatown". Before that time he films "MacBeth" in Europe and also the film "What?"

So unless he has a doppleganger and that is who was in Europe than it is impossible for him to have had anything to do with that woman who is claiming he photographed her in 1969 on the beach when she was 10. Same thing with the other accuser. His whereabouts have been positively documented. Argue with me on this now after all the evidence provided. Can't be in two places at once.

reply

I wouldn't argue with you at all. I do think Roman Polanski may have acted inappropriately with that young girl during his photo shoot with her at Jack Nicholson's house, but other than that, I don't see him as the monster he is portrayed to be by the public.

The recent death of Charles Maanson reminds me again of Polanski's tragic life. His family was in a concentration camp in Poland. He lost his pregnant mother to the Nazis. He managed to go on and have a successful career only to lose his pregnant wife to a horrible murder. Really, how many people lose TWO families to vicious murder and survive? He has had a successful career. I give him credit for not losing his mind.

reply

Thank you for your nonjudemental sentiments. As for what happened with Geimer, according to her Twitter account she is pretty much said it's her own business and she's tired of the press making more out of it than it was. She has also called foul on all the reports of sexual assault these past months by people who she said clouds the real cases of rape. Make of that what you want....

As for Polanski's survival.... Yes. I'm not sure how many of us could survive any of that and come out with our heads on right. The one thing Polanski has said he's always had was film...his art. That is the one thing that has kept him grounded in times of unbearable grief. People erroneously believe he's a pedophile. He's not. He likes young WOMEN, not babies, pre-pubescents or girls who are not physically advanced in terms of having all those things like full breasts. That is not a pedophile. He also has never forced himself on anyone who didn't return his advances. Anyone who knows anything about him knows that. That is exactly what the three psychiatric reports prepared by the Board of Prison Terms and Pardons said about him in 1978, and what his probation officer said. I tend to believe them over the masses who like to make up stuff wholesale.

reply

From the article in the OP:

"Marianne, an artist from Santa Barbara, California, said she was taken to meet Polanski at a beach by her mother in 1975, which is when the molestation took place."

Every account says the allegation of molestation was in 1975, so why are you going on about 1969?

Frankly, even if it was 1969 (which it isn't), the only period Polanski has an airtight alibi is from some point in November through December 1969, when he was out of the country, and some amount of time in March, when he was in London.

reply

I read 1969 on two different articles back in 2017. That's the date I'm going on. If we're looking at 1975 then, Polanski was in France for six months prior to the filming of his film "The Tenant". The filming schedule for "The Tenant" was 14 November 1975 - March 1976, so that make him indisputably in France from May 1975, to March 1976 his location can positively be accounted for. As for her allegations, it's well known Polanski does NOT go for children. He likes sexually mature young women, note NOT CHILD. She still would have been a child at that point and he is clearly not into children. That we know form the WOMEN he has been married to and dated. According to Samantha Geimer, the one case he has admitted to having had consensual sex with, she disputes all other women who have accused him as being liars. She claims they're just jumping on the stupid #MeToo movement to get attention.

I've said this before, he was investigated at the time for any indescretions by the LAPD. They found nothing else in his background, and it's not like his name wasn't out there. Had this woman and the others who have accused him wanted him punished, they should have come forward at the time. It's not like he wasn't famous then. I also do not take their claims of PTSD as an excuse. After he fled they could have come forward then. They didn't. I would love to get them under oath in a court-of-law..... Oh wait, statute of limitations guarantees they can't. However, the accusation is the only thing needed to put blood in the water. Particularly at the time he was trying to get the 1977 case closed. Timing indeed.

reply

Then it certainly could have happened from January through whenever he left in May of 1975. That's a big chunk of time for something that (allegedly) happened in a small portion of one day, probably only taking a couple of hours.

"As for her allegations, it's well known Polanski does NOT go for children. He likes sexually mature young women, note NOT CHILD. She still would have been a child at that point and he is clearly not into children."

She was 10 at the time. Samantha Geimer was only 3 years older than she. Who knows, maybe she was almost 11, or "looked older than her years," as some claim with Geimer. I don't call a 13 or 14 year-old a sexually mature young woman, BTW. A male of the same age is a boy; a girl of that age is a girl.

You do realise pedophelia is not defined as someone's *sole* sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, and that puberty often starts at 10, making a 10-year-old, biologically, an adult? There are many pedophiles who are married and engage in sex with their age-appropriate spouses? It's that their primary attraction is to pre-pubescent children.

"According to Samantha Geimer, the one case he has admitted to having had consensual sex with, she disputes all other women who have accused him as being liars. She claims they're just jumping on the stupid #MeToo movement to get attention."

Why is it that when it comes to this, you feel she's an authority and credible, yet with other things (those that point to Polanski's guilt), she becomes a liar and not credible?

You don't take claims of PTSD as an "excuse," and yet it's well known that women who've experienced sexual assault or rape often don't step forward -- some not at all, others only years later. You don't think sexual assault or rape is traumatic? Really?

(cont'd)

reply

Stepping forward when he was trying to get the 1977 case closed makes perfect sense to me, if these allegations are true. If they're true, they'd have thought it was already dealt with, no need to step forward if they thought he was already out of the country. No doubt they knew what Geimer had gone through as a result of speaking out at the time. Why would they want to subject themselves to that?

If they were children at the time, why on earth would you expect them to come forward then?

Samantha Geimer was under oath, but that doesn't make any difference to you. Why would these people being under oath be any different?

reply

These allegations were investigated and found to be bogus. They didn't know what Geimer "went through" because Geimer has stated it was the authorities that made it worse for her. She said Polanski never hurt her. Doesn't sound like rape or anything to me, but hey go ahead and imagine something.

As for any of these other allegations, the Swiss authorities have concluded there was nothing to the allegations. Charlotte Lewis can be considered a bogus case because her own past statements damn her. When he plead guilty to the one charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, he was asked and was required to confess to any other indiscretions he might have committed as part of the plea bargain. Under oath he said there were no other cases. The criminal courts are free to open other cases but they have not. Speaks volumes to how valid they think those allegations are.

reply

"These allegations were investigated and found to be bogus."

Please provide credible sources/links that prove this allegation was investigated and found to be false. Thanks.

Greimer stated the authorities (with whom you side, BTW) made the ordeal *worse* for her NOT that what Polanski did to her -- against her will, with her repeatedly saying no and trying to get out of it -- wasn't also harmful and wrong. Even Polanski admitted to what he did.

"Under oath" only means anything to you when it fits your preconceived agenda. With Polanski it does; with Geimer it doesn't.

Sexual assault, and rape, are very often difficult to prove. Often there isn't enough, or even any, physical evidence with which to prosecute. A DA can only move forward if s/he believes there's enough evidence to effectively prosecute. It speaks of nothing about how valid they may think the claims are, only what they believe they can bring to court and win. If you say otherwise, you're disingenuous, because you *have to* know this.

reply

What's up with this post? It's not from a user--if you roll cursor over "The Sun" it doesn't read like a link, and "they" don't have any posting history you can access.

Also, how are they able to include a photo inside a post like that? I've never seen that before in any posts on this site.

reply

It looks like some kind of link to the Sun, thesun.co.uk website ... in other words some kind of news link or commercial.

Seems also like it cannot be put on ignore either.

reply

Yeah, I'm curious as to who posted it, and how. I can't recall ever seeing anything like that on the old IMDB boards. Every post was always from an account with a history.

reply

I asked the question and it was answered on the main discussion page. It was some kind of remnant of an old account.

reply

There used to be a news tab on MC from google, and you could reply to them.

reply

On an island with Jeffry Epstein...

It seems to be common for women to hallucinate sexual fantasies with famous people. Name any famous person and there's some woman with an impossible accusation. It's hilarious when we find out that all the details came from a TV crime drama. I don't know what to do about it other than to start prosecuting the accusers. It's already supposed to be illegal. Why aren't we doing this?

reply