Polanski Rape Victim Says Dismiss Charge Against Him
She’s 45 now, but it was three decades ago when she was 13 and director Roman Polanski, now 75, had sex, which led to him pleading guilty to “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.” After a 42-day psychiatric evaluation, Polanski fled the US, and he’s still a fugitive 30 years later.
[Samantha] Geimer says she believes prosecutors are reciting sexually explicit details to distract attention from accusations of wrongdoing by them and by the judge who initially heard the case.
Geimer says she is willing to appear in court – if Polanski cannot – to urge dismissal of the charge that led him to flee the country.
Geimer says she just wants this to go away, that she is being harmed by the continued focus on this. A sex act 30 years ago, where the then-13-year-old is being harmed more by the autorities than she was by Polanski.
Hannity misses you Alan imo.
I thought the “Panel” of Bachmann, Sharpton and “His name is Robert Paulson”, irritating and irrelevant.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
I miss Alan already…and I’m a fan of Sean.
“Hannity” is too in your face and over-the-top. Maybe it will grow on me…I dunno though. I want a Crossfire-esque debate show and I don’t know how in the heck one as good as H&C will ever come about.
January 12th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
But, yes, 30 years is a long time anyway. Is there a statute of limitations on rape, I wonder? I’m not a lawyer but since he is a fugitive, would that ignore any limitations (time-wise) on prosecution?
January 12th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Shame on you, Romie.
Sincerely,
Woody
January 13th, 2009 at 1:37 am
The statute of limitations on rape has long expired; he’s wanted for bail jumping and flight to avoid procecution.
Stuff like that.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:55 am
Polanski will never return to the US. The minute he steps foot on US soil, the authorities will arrest him for fleeing.
The man is 75 years old and has been living in Europe for decades. He has no reason to come back to the US.
Geimer wants to move on with her life and the authorities should dismiss the case on her behalf.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:18 am
I think when you are a fugitive, charged with a crime, the statute of limitations does not apply.
My understanding (any criminal lawyers out there want to chime it?) is that the statute of limitations has to do w/ charging someone with a crime, and they charged this (alleged) pedophile within the time frame. The fact that he has successfully found places to live where they don’t care about his (alleged) pedophilia does not mean he can’t still be prosecuted for his crime.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Alan, good luck in the future. When my mind was usually made up on an issue, your points of view would always shed new light on my opinions.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Um Cara, yeah, that makes sense. He was charged…so it’s irrelevant how long he stays abroad. If she had brought up the allegations NOW, then it would not have been prosecutable (if that’s a word), I guess.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Typical liberal ideals : forgive pedophiles.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Typical liberal ideals : forgive pedophiles
Where did ‘liberals’ suggest we do that?
January 13th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
By the way, I should not have said alleged in my first post on this topic – I didn’t pay close enough attention to the article – the turd plead guilty, no ‘alleged’ about it.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Wrong (again) UM CARA,
The “sexually explicit” details that were being discussed no doubt include the fact that the victim was post-pubescent, (visually as well as sexually) and although at 13 this falls under the catagory of statutory rape, it does NOT, by definition in fact, make Polansky a “pedophile” alleged, or not.
I happen to strongly agree that in a modern civilization it is beneficial, and necessary to have limits on the age of consent.
But I refuse to stand by while ignorant mistakes are made between “pedophilia” which is a pyshological disorder, and not checking the ID of a “young groupie backstage”. Or in this case, at a photo-shoot where she has been described as having looked older than her years…
Yes, it was a crime. And I understand the knee-jerk repulsion that many feel, especially parents when they hear stories like this. The age of consent has recently been raised from 14 to 16 in Canada. I agree with this, if the partner is over 18, but not under.
But by equating the crime Polansky committed with this post-pubescent minor to what an actual pedophile does with a pre-pubescent child is ludicrous.
And also, incorrect.
Polansky’s brief encounter with this under-age model did not, and does not, meet the clinical definition of pedophilia, like it or not.
Even the victim wants “done with it” and has frogiven him. Save your trumped-up “moral outrage” for a bigger problem…
…If Americans (and others) want to express their outrage and disgust for the ’sexualization’ of minors, I suggest they look around them at their culture of ’sex sells’…
… their so-called junior beauty contests (Lol – see Little Miss Sunshine), and the way many of them allow their children to dress. And the clothes they allow the stores to sell to 8 year-olds…
And then go read Luke 4:23
January 14th, 2009 at 12:26 am
Frosty said: And then go read Luke 4:23
For the Libs in the crowd that don’t own a bible: ;-)
Luke 4:23 (New International Version)
23Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself! Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’ ”
Frosty, what was your point in quoting this verse?
January 14th, 2009 at 9:37 am
That means she was 13 and he was 33?? SICK SICK SICK. UGH. It doesn’t matter if you have or haven’t gone through puberty. 13 is still a child.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:40 am
BM,
I am going to break one of my rules and post a definition to this blog (I often ridicule those who do, thus it is entirely fair for folks to now ridicule me)
In law enforcement, the term “pedophile” is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including both prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the local age of consent).
and then:
Even the victim wants “done with it” and has frogiven him.
Where did you see that she had forgiven him? It wasn’t in the blog post, nor in the article Alan linked to, so I was not aware she had. Regardless, in the United States, in many cases the victim doesn’t decide whether to press charges or not, the prosecutor does.
It would be interesting to learn more about the prosecutor’s misconduct, though I believe her concern is more about the attention being drawn to her than anything, so it would probably be best to just let the prosecutors quietly continue their work (which they should do as quietly as possible out of respect to the victim)
So in your book I shouldn’t express outrage against those who have sex with kids, but rather parents who enter their kids into beauty contests? Can’t I express outrage against both?
I don’t think it is a good idea to enter your 8 year old (or your 13 year old) into a beauty contest.
And while this apparently foolish of me (trumped up even), according to Frosty, I think it is even worse for an adult to have sex with a 13 year old.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:54 am
I’ve seen 25 year olds that could pass for 15; I’ve seen 13 & 14 year olds that could pass for 25.
We weren’t there.
He may not have known her age; she may well have tried to pass for ‘adult’.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
“”So in your book I shouldn’t express outrage against those who have sex with kids, but rather parents who enter their kids into beauty contests? “”
Yes Ok, there, Um CARA, That’s EXACTLY what I was saying. Well done mate.
Your ability to fully comprehend complex issues continues to astound me…
Lol
January 14th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Uhuh. Sounds like the same wrong argument folks use when women are raped. “her skirt was short, she was askin’ for it”
Please
January 14th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Your ability to fully comprehend complex issues continues to astound me…
Thanks! But your posts really aren’t all that complex, they are generally ‘full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.’ (though I won’t accuse you of being an idiot, simple, predictable, sure – but you aren’t an idiot)
January 14th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
We weren’t there.
He asked her mother if he could photograph her. He gave her drugs, and he raped her. (it was not consensual, so despite what Bad Mr. Frosty asserts, it was not statutory rape).
He knew how old she was. He plead guilty (to engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, not rape. he was plead down.). He then fled the country.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
He is a guilty dirtbag! Sure there are thirteen year olds that are developed and can get our old primevil lebido going, but you just don’t go there. It is not cool, not under any circumstance.
January 14th, 2009 at 7:13 pm