Roman Polanski: Is it still a crime if the victim wants it to go away?

[AtulaSiriwardane]

Roman Polanski: Is it still a crime if the victim wants it to go away?


editor

• by Annette Cardwell, Shine staff, on Tue Sep 29, 2009 4:26pm PDT

• 211 Comments
• Post a Comment
• Read More from This Author »
• Report Abuse

AP

Until a few days ago, I'd not really given the Roman Polanski story much thought–he was basically a punchline to jokes about men interested in much-younger women. So I went looking for the facts of the case, and wow. Let's be clear about what this guy is accused of doing, so there's no confusion.

In 1977, then 43-year-old film director Roman Polanski was arrested for raping a 13-year-old girl after plying her with champagne and Quaaludes. He did all this after luring her to the home where the rape took place on the pretense that he was going to photograph her for French Vogue. He proceeded with the sex act, even after she asked him to "keep away." And when the police asked her why she didn't fight harder to resist him, she said, "Because I was afraid of him." You can read the entirety of her painful testimony here on The Smoking Gun.

Polanski eventually agreed to a plea deal that charged him with having sex with a minor, but, when it looked like a Superior Court judge might not honor the deal, he chose to flee the country. For much of his time on the lam, he's held French citizenship, since France won't extradite its citizens to the U.S.

So, now 30 years have passed. Work-wise, Polanksi has continued his legendary career by making a slew of impressive movies, including the Academy Award-winning "The Pianist." He's carefully evaded arrest by choosing to travel to places he knew he wouldn't be arrested. And then Saturday, the 76 year old arrived in Switzerland to attend the Zurich Film Festival, and the Swiss police were there to apprehend him.

Upon first glance, I say, "Finally! Justice can be served." I could care less about his supporters who call for the case to be dismissed based on the fact that he's a cultural icon. I'm not convinced he's paid for his crime in years of pain. And the case is certainly not too old or even "dead," as Debra Winger put it, to prosecute. Nor do I feel he was justified in fleeing because he believed that the judge would renege on the deal.

And I am flat out disgusted by Whoopi Goldberg saying on "The View" that "It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape." Um, excuse me? Can I get a definition of "rape-rape" vs. what Polanski did? I mean, have we all lost our minds?

But here's something that does give me pause: The victim, Samantha Geimer (pictured below from 1977 and 2008), doesn't want the case to move forward. Earlier this year, Geimer filed a formal request that Los Angeles prosecutors drop the charges against him–not because he didn't commit the crimes, but because she simply doesn't want to revisit the details of what happened and the media attention it brings. She told People in 1997, "He did something really gross to me, but it was the media that ruined my life."

AP



Ouch. It's horrible to think that this man's actions have ruined this woman's life twice over–first as a sexual assault and second as a media assault during the trial and since he's fled.

So that leads me to the big question: Who really owns the crime here? Legally, it may not be the end, but should it be?

As much as I hurt for Geimer, I can't help but think about the message this case sends. If you're famous, artistically talented and rich enough, people are willing to overlook horrific crimes and even campaign for your freedom. Also, all you seemingly have to do is wait out your victim's resolve, and eventually it may not matter to her anymore, or at least that closure will matter more. Can you help but wonder how different Geimer would feel had he been extradited and stood for sentencing decades ago?

My feelings are firmly to hold people accountable for their crimes, especially one this horrible. And I don't think the decision to throw the book at this scumbag (however talented he is) should now have to fall to the victim. She gave her testimony 31 years ago! She really shouldn't have to relive it again. And there would obviously be less discussion on this if were talking about a brutal murder instead of a rape and the victim of his crime couldn't actually be intimidated into wanting the case to end.

What do you think, Shine ladies? Should this case be lessened or thrown out based on the victim's pleas? And what do you think of the circus of Polanski defenders, especially the women who–like Whoopi–think we should let this go?
Related: samantha geimer, roman polanski, rape, fugitive

 

[AtulaSiriwardane]

Polanski The Predator

Recently unsealed grand jury minutes detail 1977 sex assault

MARCH 11--It's been 26 years since Roman Polanski's arrest for sexually abusing a 13-year-old girl, but the director's Oscar nomination and the success of his film "The Pianist" has again focused attention on the March 1977 crime that prompted his French exile.
Polanski, 69, will not discuss the case and his victim, Samantha Geimer, now 39, has recently said that the sex assault should not color his chances with Academy Award voters. But that, of course, does not lessen the severity of the crime, which is graphically detailed in the following grand jury testimony, which was quietly unsealed four months ago by L.A. Superior Court Judge David Wesley.
Two weeks after Polanski plied her with Champagne and a Quaalude, Samantha Gailey appeared before an L.A. grand jury and recalled Polanski's predatory behavior in a Mulholland Canyon home owned by Jack Nicholson.
The teenager's troubling--and contemporaneous--account of her abuse at Polanski's hands begins with her posing twice for topless photos that the director said were for French Vogue. The girl then told prosecutors how Polanski directed her to, "Take off your underwear" and enter the Jacuzzi, where he photographed her naked. Soon, the director, who was then 43, joined her in the hot tub. He also wasn't wearing any clothes and, according to Gailey's testimony, wrapped his hands around the child's waist.
The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."
Following his indictment on various sex charges, Polanski agreed to a plea deal that spared him prison time (he had spent about 45 days in jail during a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation). But when it seemed that a Superior Court judge might not honor the deal--and sentence Polanski to prison--the director fled the country.
Below you'll find links to Gailey's grand jury testimony, the heart of which runs 36 pages (we've broken the transcript into two 18-page sections for easier navigation).
Click here for transcript pages 1-18
Click here for transcript pages 19-36

 

[AtulaSiriwardane]

Sex crime conviction

In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Samantha Geimer). It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[33][34]
According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer's mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, "Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him." She added, "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want to go back to the second shoot."[34]
Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the home of actor Jack Nicholson in the Mulholland area of Los Angeles. "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this".[35]
Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes,[36] a sedative drug, and "despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her",[37][38][39] each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.[40][41][42][43]
Charges and guilty plea

Polanski was initially charged[44] with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[45]
Under the terms of the plea agreement, according to the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay of ninety days to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad. Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days. All parties expected Polanski to get only probation at the subsequent sentencing hearing, but after an alleged conversation with LA Deputy District Attorney David Wells, the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he would send the director to prison and order him deported".[46] In response to the threat of imprisonment, Polanski fled the United States.
Polanski fled initially to London on February 1, 1978, where he maintained residency. A day later he traveled on to France, where he held citizenship, avoiding the risk of extradition to the U.S. by Britain. Consistent with its extradition treaty with the United States, France can refuse to extradite its own citizens, and an extradition request later filed by U.S. officials was denied. The United States government could have requested that Polanski be prosecuted on the California charges by the French authorities.[47] Polanski has never returned to England, and later sold his home there. The United States could still request the arrest and extradition of Polanski from other countries should he visit them, and Polanski avoided visits to countries (such as the UK) that were likely to extradite him and mostly travelled and works in France, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland.

In a 2003 interview,[48] Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us." Furthermore, "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it." In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever — besides me — and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."[49]

In 2008, a documentary film of the aftermath of the incident, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. Following review of the film, Polanski's attorney, Douglas Dalton, contacted the Los Angeles district attorney's office about prosecutor David Wells' role in coaching the trial judge, Laurence J. Rittenband. Based on statements by Wells included in the film, Polanski and Dalton sought review of whether the prosecutor acted illegally and engaged in malfeasance in interfering with the operation of the trial.[50] However, after Polanski's arrest, David Wells recanted his statements in the film saying that he lied and "tried to butter up the story to make me look better".[51]
In December 2008, Polanski's lawyer in the United States filed a request to Judge David S. Wesley to have the case dismissed on the grounds of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The filing says that Judge Rittenband (now deceased) violated the plea bargain by keeping in communication about the case with a deputy district attorney who was not involved. These activities were depicted in Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.[52] In January 2009, Polanski's lawyer filed a further request to have the case dismissed, and to have the case moved out of Los Angeles, as the Los Angeles courts require him to appear before the court for any sentencing or dismissal, and Polanski did not intend to appear. In February 2009, Polanski's request was tentatively denied by Judge Peter Espinoza, who said that he would make a ruling if Polanski appeared in court.[53][54] The same month, Samantha Geimer filed to have the charges against Polanski dismissed from court, saying that decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor's focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family.[55]
There is no statute of limitations governing the case because Polanski had already been charged and pleaded guilty in 1978 to having had unlawful sex with a minor.[56] A complicating issue for resolution of the case is that failure to appear is in itself a crime. As University of Southern California law professor Jean Rosenbluth noted: "The complication is that it is a separate offense to flee the jurisdiction."[57]
Arrest in Zürich

Main article: 2009 arrest of Roman Polanski
On September 26, 2009, Polanski was arrested by Swiss police at Zürich Airport while trying to enter Switzerland, in relation to his outstanding 1978 U.S. arrest warrant. Polanski had hoped to attend the Zurich Film Festival to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award.[58][59] The arrest followed a request by the United States that Switzerland apprehend Polanski. U.S. investigators had learned of his planned trip several days earlier, which had given them enough time to negotiate with Swiss authorities and lay the groundwork for an arrest. The United States had been seeking his arrest and extradition worldwide since 2005. While there had been a U.S. arrest warrant for him since 1978 and he had been on the Interpol "red notice" wanted list for several years,[60] an international arrest warrant was issued in 2005. The United States must make a formal extradition request within 40 days to have Polanski extradited and stand trial.[61]
The Swiss Justice Ministry said Polanski was put "in provisional detention." An arrest warrant or extradition to the United States could be subject to judicial review by the Federal Criminal Court (Bundesstrafgericht) and then the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgericht), according to a ministry spokesman.[62] Polanski announced that he intends to appeal extradition and hired lawyer Lorenz Erni to represent him.[63][64]
In reaction to the arrest, the foreign ministers of both France and Poland urged Switzerland to release Polanski, who holds dual citizenship of both countries.[65] On 29 September, Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk responded to early reactions by urging his Cabinet ministers to exercise calm and reminding them that it is a "case of rape and of punishment for having sex with a child."[66] On 30 September, the French government dropped its public support for Polanski, on the grounds that he was not "above the law." Government spokesman Luc Chatel said: "We have a judicial procedure under way, for a serious affair, the rape of a minor, on which the American and Swiss legal systems are doing their job," adding: "One can understand the emotion that this belated arrest, more than 30 years after the incident, and the method of the arrest, have caused."[67]
Legal actions

On September 30, The New York Times reported that Steptoe & Johnson’s Reid Weingarten, a well-known criminal defense lawyer and allegedly a close friend of Attorney General Eric Holder, had been hired by Polanski for his defense.[68][69]

 

[AtulaSiriwardane]

In a 2003 interview,[48] Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us." Furthermore, "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it." In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever — besides me — and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."[49]