Believe me, I am a very liberal guy. I think Pot should be legal and that drug sentences are too tough!
But this girl was 13!!! Not a 17 or 16 year old girl who lied about her age. 13!!! And he knew it!
He is a sick person and weird. He should be treated like anyone else would who did that. Jail time.
It is amazing how people act like this was no big deal.
Statutory rape laws are arbitrary and have an all or nothing mentality about them.
The judge may have been under a lot of pressure to put him away for the max.
He was never sentenced, but the indication is that Polanski was going to prison for a long time.
The girls mother may have had a blackmail scheme in mind.
Would you allow your 14 year old daughter to go unaccompanied
for a private photo shoot with a film director like Roman Polanski?
Psychiatrists don't see Polanski as a predator
and he certainly doesn't act like the typical predator.
He showed bad judgment.
He did something immoral.
But people were out to get him.
And I feel differently today then I did back then.
To err is human, to forgive divine.
So you think that giving a 13 year old girl drugs and sodomizing her doesn't deserve some jail time?
http://vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html
Movies I've Seen: http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=25003655
I don't know. I just don't have all the facts. I know she wasn't a virgin.
Well, her grand jury testimony and several news clippings can be found at my link above.
Movies I've Seen: http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=25003655
not being a virgin isn't an excuse to "rape" someone, you are one sicko yourself, porsche1974-1
besides, how did you know she wasn't a virgin if you "don't have all the facts"???
again, not being a virgin isn't an excuse to "rape" someone
One of the facts that I do have is that the girl was not a virgin.
This is very hard for me to defend Roman Polanski.
He did something I would never do nor condone.
I actually remember when this first went down and I was very much in favor of having him thrown in prison with some sodomites. But, as time went by, I gained more facts and began to think that maybe this wasn't the thing to do.
I see sex offenders in San Francisco who can't find a place to live because there is no place that is "outside the range" so they go off the grid. I see sex offenders who get released from prison and commit the same crime again.
I suppose I should see this film, maybe it will show up on HBO some day then I can better discuss it.
[deleted]
Natassia Kinski has never thought of Roman as anything but a friend and yes, lover. Her father, Klaus Kinski and his wife were friends of Polanski's and never ever thought of him as a rapist, and believed their daughter was old enough to know what she was doing and who she was doing it to. Age of consent in FRANCE is 15, like it out lump it. Kinski was OF AGE to decide for herself what and with whom she wanted to have sex with. She went on to have a relationship with musician Quincy Jones after that. It doesn't mean squat what California's age of consent was if she and Polanski were having their relationship in FRANCE you git. Would you quit infantalizing teenage young women who KNOW what they want and what they want to do with their own bodies?
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon
I see sex offenders in San Francisco who can't find a place to live because there is no place that is "outside the range" so they go off the grid. I see sex offenders who get released from prison and commit the same crime again.Where or how do you see these people? Are you in law enforcement or social work?
Why does it matter that she was not a virgin?
What if she had a 13-year-old boyfriend. Two kids who had experimented together?
If that were the case, then does that make it alright for an adult male to come along and take advantage of that girl? Because she's not a virgin?
Explain this reasoning to me.
Giemer was NO virgin. She was having an affair with a 38 year old friend of her father's and she also had had sexual intercourse with her 18 year-old boyfriend, neither of whom, were charged for the very same thing Polanski did. So ask yourself why Roman Polanski felt he was being treated unfairly. The only two people who were charged during this whole thing were Polanski and Anjelica Huston. Yet Giemer's mother's boyfriend had drug paraphernalia lying about the house and the mother provided Qaaludes to her daughter. Was she charged?
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon
Samantha Geiner herself has stated; "I wouldn't use the term 'rape'. That invokes images of a level of violence that was never involved. But it wasn't consentual sex, either."
If the victim herself doesn't call it rape, I don't think we should, either. Maybe "involuntary intercourse".
There was no violence because she was drugged you dimwits.
"But, as time went by, I gained more facts and began to think that maybe this wasn't the thing to do."
er, and what facts are these? Does it make Polanksi any less guilty?
Since he plead guilty at his trial, most of the cr@p his apologists come up with is moot.
"She wasn't a virgin"
That has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. So non-virgins cannot be raped? Are you mentally retarded?
123456
I doubt Boobalot can answer any of these questions. SOme new facts and evidence is surfacing. Yes, Polanski is guilty of having sex with a minor, I nor Polanski denies that. However, the case was hardly fair and the judge was shady if anything.I question anyone's sanity who claims they hate someone and are repulsed by his actions yet can't stop talking about him/them. If you hate him so, why waste all your time and energy devoted to him? Sort of sick, wouldn't you say? I guess some people just need a hobby. In your case, telling lies is like doing crosswords. You an idiot and a moron who should spend more time researching and less time ranting without thinking.
Here's an excerpt from the new documentary that is raising a lot of new questions.
"Even after Polanski's defense attorney Douglas Dalton and the district attorney Roger Gunson, and the victim herself, argued for a plea bargain, Judge Rittenband was determined not to appear soft on crime in the press. Breaking years of silence, Dalton and Gunson chronicle what became in Dalton's words a "surreal" scene. Polanski was examined by two court-appointed psychiatrists, one of whom testifies in the film, and deemed to not be a mentally deranged sex offender. But Rittenband still treated him as one."
"Dalton and Gunson cite multiple instances where Rittenband prevailed on them to stage a dog-and-pony show for the benefit of the media to justify his handling of the case. And they also cite several occasions where Rittenband promised one thing only to change his mind at the last minute.
Finally, Polanski couldn't stand it anymore. In an archival British interview that appropriately opens the film, Polanski says he felt like he was a mouse being toyed with for sport. Again overreaching his jurisdiction, Rittenband said he would release the director from serving additional time if he waived his right to a deportation hearing and basically just left the country.
The machinations of his departure are well-documented as his then-employer Dino De Laurentiis reportedly slipped him some cash in a fateful Beverly Hills meeting. Perhaps the film's greatest revelation is a statement by Gunson, the man who spent months prosecuting Polanski, that he was not surprised the director left under those circumstances.
It really is an amazing story, and Zenovich does it justice. She includes dozens of interviews, and did dozens more she doesn't include. Except for some rare archival footage, such as a scene of Polanski on the set of "The Fearless Vampire Killers" directing Sharon Tate, the director was not interviewed for the film. But many people from his life appear as friendly witnesses, including Geimar. In addition, Zenovich and her crack editor Joe Bini expertly weave in telling scenes from Polanski's films that suggest his legal troubles were like something out of one of his dark and twisted movie".
"Most people remember that Polanski left the country, but few know why and under what circumstances. "Wanted and Desired" finally sets the record straight, and, if there is any justice in the world, Polanski will be allowed to return to this country not as a pariah but as someone who made a mistake and has more than paid for it."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/awards_festivals/fest_reviews/article_display.jsp?&rid=10483
Get a life a$$hole! (Oh, and get laid! You seem to REALLY like bringing up the sex with a 13 year old thing. You sound jealous, you sick FU*K!)
"
Get a life a$$hole! (Oh, and get laid! You seem to REALLY like bringing up the sex with a 13 year old thing. You sound jealous, you sick FU*K!)"
You can always count on Polanksi supporters to attack the man, not the argument.
If I'm not over virtually masturbating over Polanksi like his fanboys I must not have a "life". Right. Last time I checked this was a public forum, not a Polanski fan page. Of course, defending a child rapist must therefore mean that you must have a "life".
I'm bring up the point about the 13 year old, because he raped a 13 year, PLEAD GUILTY and ran away. Most people would find something wrong about this. Only a delusional Polanksi fanboy could infer that I'm jealous. My friend, you have some real issues if you think child rape is something you can get "jealous" about.
Occams Razor:
1. Polanski is a rapist.
Evidence: He PLEAD GUILTY and ran away. He didn't get accused and ran. He plead guilty and ran away from his punishment.
OR:
2. There is a giant conspiracy to throw him into jail.
Evidence : Well, heres the good part. His worshipers say there is a giant conspiracy to put him into jail. Apparently, there is evidence that OBVIOUSLY PROVES BEYOND A DOUBT, that he got a bad deal. This is hilarious, because despite all this Polanksi has never returned to the USA to take advantage of this OBVIOUS PROOF and clear his name. Hell, If detained Arabs from Gitmo can get lawyered up and get out, I'm sure Polanksi could do it. Hell, Even Micheal Jackson pulled it off.
What is the most simplest explanation using Occam's Razor? I would choose 1.
Attack the man and not the argument? Oh really? LIke you have? WHat a hypocrite. YOU ARE THE ONE who seems to have it put for him a$$hole!!!
You keep using the word rape and when I point out the State of California never used that word (and they were prosecuting him!) You go silent. You never explain how you know more than the courts. Why is that? No one has denied he plead guilty. He even admitted it and discussed it in his memoirs. I have said I don't approve and I do not condone it. Just because I defend him when I hear lies about does not mean I support him 100%. Its just dumb asses like you can't understand it. I think your jealous because you are going on and on about disgusted you are yet you can't seem to stop talking about it. Most people will agree anyone who talks SO MUCH about something they "claim" they can't stand or hate usually feels just the opposite. I stand by what I said. You sound jealous. Sour grapes, anyone?
ALso, let me remind you this case is NOW 30 years old. EVERYONE has moved on. The victim forgives him and Polanski has a beautiful wife and two children and is more popular now then ever. His success must drive you angry with rage. WHy else would you STILL OBSESS about it?
Polanski is NOT a rapist. You have no idea what the word means. His prosecutors never accused of that nor is it in any court documents. You ignore the law and editorialize your opinions and pass them off as facts. Even when your errors are pointed out to you, you ignore them and continue to lie.
He plead guilty to having sex with a minor you idiot! NOT Rape! There IS a difference! He fled the country but he did serve 60 days to be evaluated and did cooperate with the law. He fled as a last resort from a shady judge. This film clearly shows the judge made his decision before hearing any of the facts in the case. Don't you think before you post on a forum where thats the main point of the movie you should know that? You come to the forum on this new documentary and ignore key points to the movie. What an moron! Not only are you dumb, your not even fair!
Bottomline. Your a dumb idiot who has such a simple small minded view,you can't see beyond your own ignorance. You ignore questions and facts asked. Instead, you resort to insults which is usually what you do when you loose an argument and can't back up your claims with facts. Your a liar and an idiot and you sir will be called on your filth and lies each and every time! So, keep on posting. I'll be following right behind you with a BIG shovel picking up the BS you drop!!!
[deleted]
First of all, she was NOT 13, she was close to 15. She was born 01 September, 1962. Second of all, there was absolutely NO medical evidence she was sodomized. That is why that charge, one of the most severe of the charges was dropped. Next off, the mother had seen the initial shots of her daughter in February and they consisted of about two dozen polaroids in which the young woman appeared topless, yet the mother didn't call the police on Polanski then. The next thing is that Polanski was charged with possession of Qaaludes, however, the boyfriend of the mother was hocking his pot magazine to Polanski and had drug paraphernalia in the house, yet he wasn't charged. The only ones charged was Polanski and Anjelica Huston. Ask yourself why? The last issue is this, the young woman was having an affair with a 38 year old friend of the family and her boyfriend was 18 at the time. So I ask you this? Why weren't those two others charged for having sex with the young woman? Only Polanski and Huston were charged at all. Could it be because they were the 'bigger' fish to fry?
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon
Source, please.
Movies I've Seen: http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=25003655
To what?
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon
To the assertions in your last post. You state several things as facts, so please supply a source.
Movies I've Seen: http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=25003655
[deleted]
Now I'm no fancy lawyer or anything but this crime happened 30 years ago. Consider these points:
1) Aren't there statutes of limitaions that could run anytime now like this year or the near future?
2) I read somewhere that RP said in a bibliography that he wasn't a permanent USA citizen. He lived with a visitor's visa. Even if by some miracle this case was thrown out, would he have any desire to come back? There may some lingering memories of Sharon Tate or maybe Chuck Manson could bust out and get him(no that's just silly)
3) RP is pushing 75. Not to offened him other seniors, but he could keel over tomorrow or before this mess ends. My grandmother died a few months shy of her 75th b-day.
4) He lost his mom in Holocaust and Sharon and his almost-born child to the Manson family. I think it's fair to assume that if he went to jail, the hell in there probably wouldn't be as bad as what he through back then.
5) (Hypothetical) If he came to the US, say, next week, will he be greeted by screaming Hollywood friends and fans or police officers with handcuffs? There could be the usual riot between cops and fans. If he was thrown in jail right now, how would he serve, given his age and his track record with movies, including his Best Director Oscar?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Read the transcripts from the trial, you idiot. She was 13 years old, not 15. That is a seventh grader in case you're too ignorant to do the math. Your mind must be as twisted as Polanski's is to be defending this child molester. All you sick, twisted, sexual degenerates who defend this kiddie raper must think the same way. You must lust after children yourself in order to excuse this kind of predatory behavior. I hope none of you perverted apologists have any children. God help them if you do!
shareActually EIGHT plus five is thirteen which equals 8th grade, in case YOURE too ignorant to do the math.
http://www.listology.com/profile_public.cfm/indv_id.12830/b_check_link _dest.True
It depends when your birthday is, idiot. I was 13 in the seventh grade, you turd.
sharei just saw the movie and the girl was hot! i can see why roman did what he did.
share[deleted]
I will chime in on this because I agree with Prometheus,CDC,and Karen Hummel on regards to "defending" Roman. I, like they, do not defend his actions but there is way more to the story than what you are saying. Its been said here already that him giving Samantha drugs was not true. The drugs were hers as the police said in the HBO film regarding the case.
As it has been said,Samantha's story has changed over the years. Details have surfaced that should have surfaced long ago and things she said at the time she no longer counts in re-telling the story.Some may excuse her as being a victim who has just been through a lot but she has never acted like a victim. As others have said,she never was very comfortable using the word rape which always led me to believe maybe it was consensual after all.Why would a rape victim say that? As a poster who was a rape victim has pointed out, she does not act like any rape victim she has ever seen or heard.
Samantha has never once come across to me and the other posters here as a victim or someone who was traumatized.Sorry,she just never has.Does that make what Roman did right? No, of course not. There are two sides to every story.
As for Kinski it sounds as if you are upset that she spoke kindly of Polanski. So she likes older men. Her relationship with her father probably has something to do with why she prefers older men. Those quotes do not discredit her or even paint her in a negative light. She is married today with a family and seems happy, like Roman is. On the Tess dvd she even said her and Roman are still close friends.
Well, that's my two cents worth on the matter.I think what fascinates people about this case is there are two sides of the story. No one I have seen downplays what happened to the victim but there are still some shady questions that do not add up.
[deleted]
I think you are correct. No definitive sources and I too would love some actual truth. You or I will ever know what exactly happened. I know of the recent biography but I have not read it. All I have read was Roman's memoirs which I found surprising. His account of what happened is very similar to what Samantha said in her original testimony. Again, the drugs were Samantha's.In the HBO movie they show for the first time the actual police transcript and it is clear the drugs Roman was charged with were actually the victim's. She allowed him to take the fall for her drugs. Samantha was not an innocent girl so again I have to question how traumatized she was.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying about Nastassja. Although, I never heard she was unhappy with Roman before. As for bad taste in men,I think a lot of women have bad taste in men when they are young. Her father was crazy.On the dvd to Tess there are some interviews and short featurettes.She spoke very kindly about ROman, not just as a director but as a close friend and important part of her life. She almost did a movie for him a few years back. Forgot the title of it but I remember thinking how great it would be for them to work again.
n/t
shareAccording to the grand jury testimony, she was 13. Hard to believe the defense lawyer would miss it if she were older. Also, the court documents that have been released, and are mentioned in the movie, clearly state that Polanski knew she was 13.
Anyway, even if you are correct about her birth date, the incident took place in March of 1977 when she was 14 years old, having turned 14 in September of 1976. She would not have turned 15 for six more months, according to the date you listed above (which I doubt is correct, since it would have been so easily verified). So even if she was 14, it hardly absolves Polanski of anything.
Her prior relationships are irrelevant. In fact, if you are correct about her prior relationships, it just proves that she was manipulated and abused by several adults in her life, not just Polanski.
The drugs belonged to the girl. The girl's mother knew Polanski before the incident and I wonder why did she leave her 13 year old daughter alone with him? And yes, giving a minor drugs and alcohol and having sexual relations with them is wrong.
shareI agree giving drugs to a minor is wrong. But if the drugs were the girl doesn't that change things? What if the girl took the drugs herself in Polanski's presence. Would he still have been charged?
The victim defends her mom in the doc but she never answers the question as to why would this woman leave her 13 year old daughter knowing Polanski and this reputation?
[deleted]
[deleted]
The drugs belonged to the girl.Where did you get that information?
In the film they showed a transcript. Polanski asked if those were qualudes and she said yes. If the drugs were his why would he ask her if they were qualudes?
shareIn the film they showed a transcript. Polanski asked if those were qualudes and she said yes. If the drugs were his why would he ask her if they were qualudes?That is odd. But here is a link to the relevant part of the transcript, it starts at the bottom of page 17 and continues to page 21:
I agree, it is odd. I HATE these kinds of errors.
First its the victims age. In the doc they say she is 46 years old today, but if you do the mat that would make her 15 not 13 in 1977. A two year difference and still illegal but a mistake nonetheless.
Second was Nastasia Kinski's age. Its reported that he dated her in 1977 when she was 15 but IMDB and other sources say she was born in 1959 and then some say 1961. Which is it? If I go by IMDB in 1977 she was 18 not 15.
Now comes into question about the drugs. If they were hers I can see her denying it in fear of discrediting herself or in fear she may get in trouble. If they were his why would he lie? I mean, he has been honest with everything else which was pretty bad. If he were to lie why not lie about something bigger than this? If the drugs were at Jack's place someone needs to say they were already there.
Its these types of errors and mistakes that drive me mad. This case was so publicized and SO MANY were investigating and involved there should be not one oversight or error at all.
[deleted]
FACT: The girl he had sex with is over it and forgives him.
So this is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.
Samantha Gailey was born September 01, 1962 which made her 15 going on 16 at the time this event took place.
And Polanski served the required amount of jail time for what he was charged with. He served his time. There's a huge difference between the agreed upon plea bargain and the 50+ years Judge Rittenband wanted Polanski to serve. Not to forget that Rittenband also wanted Polanski deported...which was not within the powers of his robes to do. That was an INS matter, not his.
Apparently all of us who think this was no big deal, think it because apparently the 'victim' is "So over it"! I can tell you as a rape victim myself, one does not simply 'get over it'. And she also stated that she wasn't harmed by Polanski as much as she was harmed by the system. So that goes a very long way.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon
[deleted]
Black Rider:
I agree, yet in this post McMartin Pre-School mentality, it won't happen. The problem is that people have gotten ahold of the 'sodomy' charge and that in itself is cause to think Polanski is a perv.... This of course, despite the fact there was no evidence found to that and that charge was dropped.
Rittenband was a posure, like Lance Ito and most of the idiots in the OJ case. And let's not forget that Philip Vannatter was the lead investigator on Polanski's case. Can we forget that he was responsible for carrying around that vial of OJ's blood which he did not book into Parker Center?
As far as those who profess to speak for her, there is the notion she's still this little defenseless girl who was wronged by this weird looking guy who might have been responsible for the death of his pregnant wife. I wish people would let it go and Polanski could come back to the US to settle this and get it over with. However, as long as no DA or judge is willing to tackle it and tackle it fairly, Roman will not be back. Can anyone blame him?
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon
Finally a couple of intelligent comments on this thread. Los Angeles County's Judicial system and LAPD screw up every high profile case they touch. From Polanski to O.J. to Phil Spector and even Paris Hilton--all botch jobs. Why? Because many of the Judges, Cops, and Lawyers in L.A. are wanna-be movie stars. Turn on the cameras and all bets are off, it is showtime! Justice takes a back seat to fame. Don't you think there's a reason Phil Vannatter shows up in every celebrity case? He and many others like him are media whores pure and simple.
shareAh Cinegal, I speak the truth about Vannatter and Rittenband and Ito. All media whores who get all up on the hype of the cases they 'investigate' with no connection to the truth of what happened. I also loved how Vannatter went to Geimer's home to retrieve the panties she was wearing a week AFTER the events. Geimer had to go get them from the laundry room. The panties contained semen, however, no DNA was done to see if it was Roman's. The panties could have been her sister's or her mother's. So ask me why I'm a little skeptical of the chain of evidence. Also, Dalton (Roman's attorney) wasn't able to have the panties tested. He was only allowed to view them, not test them.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon
"Believe me, I am a very liberal guy. I think Pot should be legal and that drug sentences are too tough!"
Way to go! :)
"But this girl was 13!!"
Yeah, I never understood the ~unlawful sex with a minor~ compromise. Did his lawyer ask for that definition as some kind of deal with the judge? I thought Polanski should have been convicted of statutory rape. Then maybe France would have had to deport him back to the U.S.
And I am glad the defense attorney and the prosecutor had that stupid judge recused. He obviously no longer had the case under control. His ridiculous cat-and-mouse game with the press had blown up in his face, at Polanski's expense.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Reading these posts makes me want to vomit. Reading comments like "What he did may have been wrong, but look at the facts". Excuse me? "may" have been wrong?
So you're saying there's doubt in your mind whether a 44 year old man having sex(consensual or not) with a 13 year old kid is wrong? If so you should look into your own moral ethics.
or how about "What kind of a 13 yr old girl was already used to drink, quaaludes and sex anyway?". So now you're blaming the 13 old kid instead of the 44 year old perverted kiddie raper who molested her?
And regardless of what the other stupid people in this case, such as her mother and the judge, did he still molested a 13 year old girl and that is unexcusable. And it is completely irrelevant whether it was "consensual" or not. This degenerate scum should be behind bars where he can longer molest children and that is as simple as it gets. There are no "special circumstances" here except what the pervs who defend this lowlife make up in their own minds in order to justify his disgusting, criminal behavior. These people can't get by the fact that someone could be a talented director and at the same time be the scum of the earth.
He joins the list talented scum such as Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson and Woody Allen. Hey, I read somewhere that Adolf Hitler was a pretty good painter. It's too bad for him, huh? He might have been forgiven and his crimes overlooked if only he could have painted better!
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
LOL! These idiots who actually think I have the power and or authority to remove a post just goes to show how desperate and foolish they are. While your at it, I guess I am responsible for plotting 911 and the JFK assassination as well.
Get some help. SERIOUSLY. You talk about a film you have not seen and then are surprised when you are not taken seriously.You are relying on 20 + year old information that has been debunked. You go on rumors, here say, and gossip. You cater the facts to fit your argument and dismiss those like the DA, the victim, and the Doctors not to mention the court ruling which debunks your fairy tale. Stick to writing fiction.
[deleted]
The court appointed psychiatrist did not find Polanski to be "sick and weird," he, in fact, ruled quite the opposite and recommended probation only, no jail time.
shareThe court appointed psychiatrist did not find Polanski to be "sick and weird," he, in fact, ruled quite the opposite and recommended probation only, no jail time.
[deleted]