Roman Polanski’s victim thinks rape charges should be dropped

Despite a 30-year pending statutory rape charge, Roman Polanski’s had it pretty easy since his self-imposed exile from the United States. After fleeing the U.S. to escape a statutory rape charge stemming from inappropriate contact with a 13-year-old girl – which Polanski has never denied but instead says was “consensual”- he has lived in Europe, making films and mingling with the beautiful people. He sure seems to have a lot of people on his side. Even his victim, who is now 45, says it’s time to let the incident fade into history and drop the charges against the famous director. But not because she thinks Polanski is innocent – she’s just tired of all the publicity and wants to put it behind her.

The woman whom Roman Polanksi was convicted of having sex with when she was a mere 13 years old is “absolutely clear” about one thing.

She thinks the 30-year-old statuatory rape charge against the Oscar-winning filmmaker should be dismissed.
“Surprised and disappointed” that the Los Angeles Superior Court system has not heeded Polanski’s bid to have the charge of having unlawful intercourse with a minor dismissed, 45-year-old Samantha Geimer feels like a victim all over again, according to a four-page declaration filed Monday.

“I have urged that this matter come to a formal legal end,” Geimer stated. “I have urged that the district attorney and the court dismiss these charges.”

The prosecution’s refusal to dismiss the charge against Polanski, who has been living in self-exile in Europe since 1978, when he fled the U.S. out of fear of being sentenced to jail time for his crime, has “given great publicity to the lurid details of those events, for all to read, again,” she continued.

“True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother. I have become a victim of the actions of the district attorney. My position is absolutely clear. Let us deal with the harm and continued harm that the pendency of this matter visits upon me and my family, and waive the legal niceties away and cause it to be dismissed.”

“My views as a victim, my feelings as a victim, or my desires as a victim were never considered or even inquired into by the district attorney prior to the filing,” Geimer said. “It is clear to me that because the district attorney’s office has been accused of wrongdoing, it has recited the lurid details of the case to distract attention from the wrongful conduct of the district attorney’s office as well as the judge who was then assigned to the case.”

Geimer’s current position echoes the one she took in an interview for the 2008 documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, which alleges that the L.A. District Attorney’s Office had inappropriate communication with the judge overseeing Polanski’s case back in 1977-78.

A hearing on Polanski’s motion to dismiss the decades-old charge is scheduled for Jan. 21.
In a counterfiling last month that graphically recounted the details of the 1977 sex case, Deputy District Attorney David Walgren contended that Polanski has “voluntarily remained a fugitive from justice” and is “not entitled to have the court entertain his motion” unless he returns to L.A. to face a judge.

On Friday, a judge rejected the Pianist director’s request to have the case removed from L.A. Superior Court to the California Judicial Council because of this perceived bias among the court’s judges.

In her declaration, Geimer called the stipulation that Polanski must appear in person “a joke, a cruel joke being played on me.”

“I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr. Polanski may have caused me as a child.”

[From E!Online]

It’s clear from Geimer’s statement that she believes in Polanski’s guilt. It’s also obvious that she’s fed up with the way Polanski is still revered by the media, and is using international law to avoid prosecution. If he really had nothing to hide, he would have shown up in court 30 years ago to clear his name. It’s really sad that even the victim in this case has given up hope on having her day in court. I do wonder – if the charges are dropped, will Polanski return to the U.S. and be welcomed back to Hollywood with open arms?

Roman Polanski is shown at the Marrakech film festival in November, 2008 and at Cannes in May, 2008. Credit: WENN

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

30 Responses to “Roman Polanski’s victim thinks rape charges should be dropped”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. manda says:

    That HBO documentary was very interesting. There is definitely more to the story than just the rape. Meanwhile, can’t really remember any of it!

  2. geronimo says:

    Nor sure what I think about this but ‘Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired’ made for some fascinating viewing. Was astonished at the amount of judicial misconduct that went on at the time, nothing I’d ever read about prior to watching this. Geimer and others had some very interesting things to say, not least the idea that Polanski was just one of many people at the time in those circles, regularly doing what Polanski was arrested for and charged with.

  3. Shelly Shellz says:

    He went through alot of sh*t. Of course that doesn’t excuse the rape allegation but he was in such a messed up place at the time. He’s still a brilliant man & bc of the time this occured & the fact that he’s as great a director as he is, hollywood would open their arms to him…they’re very forgiving that way.

  4. omg says:

    “If he really had nothing to hide, he would have shown up in court 30 years ago to clear his name.”

    – haha, that implies, that u only have to be innocent to leave a us court winning. i guess every attorney will tell you at least one example where this isnt the case.

    i would have big FEAR. i mean, its the U.S. – where innocent people were executed because of the law. open your eyes.

  5. Mia says:

    Polanski claims it was consensual. I thought that was possible, but after watching the movie “Towelhead” (or “Nothing Is Private” here in the States) with Aaron Eckhart seducing a 13 year old, my view changed *completely*.
    It’s that I believe everything I see in a movie, it’s just that it shows the things from the kid’s point of view.
    Truly recommended!!

  6. Abby says:

    “i mean, its the U.S. – where innocent people were executed because of the law. open your eyes.”

    Um, what are you talking about?! I’m pretty sure we’re not the only country with the death penalty. And who are these innocent people that were executed and attorneys that you seem to know so well? And clearly he is guilty of something because innocent people don’t run for 30 years. By the way, since you seem to know everything about U.S. laws, people don’t get the death penalty for statutory rape.

  7. yeepers says:

    he wil always be a child rapist like micheal jackson. I don’t kno why ppl think his work is so marvelous, the pianist was ok but nothing fresher than sliced bread.

  8. Holly says:

    It irritates me that this woman thinks just because she’s the victim and she says so, that we should all let this go. Oh, because you, the victim, requested it, we should let him go free in the US where he could potentially drug and rape other young girls? Not on our watch, sorry honey, I don’t care that you’re delusional enough to want us all to forgive and forget…we’re not letting this guy have a chance at our daughters just because you get upset when this is brought up in the press…there are other people to consider, to protect. What a self absorbed nutso.

  9. Kate says:

    I’m wondering where the hell he would have even met a 13 year old where he had the opportunity to ‘seduce’ her? And where were her parents?

  10. Amy says:

    @Kate — She was handed over to him by her mother, as the young girl was being pimped out to Hollywood. Polanski was to be “taking pictures” of her the day of the rape. He was a famous movie director, so the girl’s dumbass mother sent her to his house, where the girl was given pills, booze and subsequently sodomized.

    I don’t blame this woman for wanting to get on with her life, but the charges should definitely NOT be dropped!

  11. Claudia says:

    I agree, Holly. This man is clearly sick and a threat to other young girls. Pedophiles dont change. He needs to pay for his actions. Period.

  12. Yo Mamma says:

    She should at least be able to sue him. He should have pay for what he did. He was wrong with what he did.

  13. midnight says:

    Kate, I grew up in Hollywood..and by 12 was smoking pot and dropping acid with older rich men. They all thought I was older of course. I remember getting out of some situations by the skin of my teeth. It was a different time then and some parents just were more lax.(and screwed up themselves) As a young girl you want fame and excitement but arent prepared for the ugliness that comes with it. ANyways, this guy knew how old she was and knew what he was doing by drugging her. He should do time.

  14. katyalia says:

    How exactly do you know that he knew?

  15. MSat says:

    Someone can be guilty of a crime and still have their case mishandled by overzealous prosecutors and judges (OJ, anyone?). I’m not saying the people involved in his arrest and the trial he never showed up for didn’t have it out for him – but that doesn’t make him any less accountable for what he did to this girl. Just like Mark Fuhrman being a racist doesn’t mean OJ didn’t nearly decapitate his ex wife.

  16. Codzilla says:

    Excellent point, MSat.

  17. yasmin says:

    I agree that he should pay for his crime. Kind of disgusting that the victim wants it all dropped. Think of your children, jeez!

  18. minx says:

    The charge is very, very old, the victim feels abused by the prosecutors and wants to have it our of her life for good but nobody cares what she thinks since this is a great story. Polanski is not a pedofile, never been a threat to your daughters, Middle America. This girl’s mom pushed her on him (ostensibly to take “artsy nudes” as if she didn’t know what was the real purpose of the visit and btw, what kind of mother would send her 13 yr. old kid alone to Jack Nicholson’s house in the middle of the night with a bunch of old creeps, albait famous?). there is no excuse for him, of course, but he’s never denied he’s guilty, gave himself up, went to jail to be psychologically evaluated and only fled the country after the judge decided to go back on the agreement made with the prosecutors (as far as I remember the details). He was trying to make an example of him and make a name for himself with such a high profile case. Polanski, btw, has been married to the same woman for many years and has two kids. The victim wants to finally close the chapter but overzealous Americans don’t give a shit about victim’s rights, not when there is a good sex story to be told.

  19. Codzilla says:

    minx: No matter the circumstances, Roman willingly and knowingly had sex with a 13 year old girl. That makes him a pedophile. Period. And what about a wife who’s beaten up by her husband, but doesn’t want him sent to jail? Should said husband be let off the hook because his victim backs down? I’m not saying that victims shouldn’t have rights, but there are certain crimes (child molestation among the most egregious) that simply cannot be swept under the rug and forgotten.

  20. Zoe says:

    good point Codzilla, MSat. Blaming the mother is pointless.

    The fact that he’s married or has kids is irrelevant.

    This man sodomized a 13 year old girl.

    This guy is a sick fuck. Period.

    God, I wonder how girls he victimized in Europe. I’m glad Americans are so concerned with the rape and abuse of girls. We still have a long way to go though damn it.

  21. RCDC says:

    domestic violence charges frequently ARE dropped if the victim recants, and with good reason. if she says she tripped, how on earth is a prosecutor supposed to convince a jury she was hit? and even if he can, that it was her husband who hit her? unless there’s another witness, the state is up a creek.
    as for the term “pedophile” i feel it’s a bit misapplied here. is what polanski did illegal? yes. Immoral? probably. creepy? without a doubt. but pedophilia is specifically the love of children, and a 13 year old is (usually, at least n developed countries) not a child. he or she is an adolescent, a sexually and mentally confused being. pedophiles are attracted to young children in large part for their otherness. guys who sleep with teenage girls are just slimy creeps. (sorry, misapplication of paraphilic terms is a pet peeve of mine).
    it’s a 30 year old charge. he’s unlikely to offend again. having been denied his full right to due process, he’s at least entitled to a new trial. what are the odds they’d file again, assuming the statute of limitations is more than 30 years?

  22. ak says:

    “what kind of mother would send her 13 yr. old kid…”

    And what kind of man would drug and sodomize a 13-year-old kid?

    But by all means, make the focus of your argument all those strawmen overzealous puritan Americans who can’t stop themselves from fetishizing a good sex scandal.

  23. nonny says:

    Should he be punished? Yes. Should the victim be victimized again by an over zealous media and a DA wanting to make a name for himself? No. Everything about this case should have been kept under lock and key and nothing about the crime should have been leaked to the media. For those of you saying “think of your daughter”…yes think of your daughter. What if it was your daughter, not only would she have to go through with something as psychologically scarring as this but to have it drug on and on opening up the wounds all over again…I would not wish that on any child.

  24. Obvious says:

    I think it was wrong and such, but he has to be tried within 5 years doens’t he? He was charged, but not tried so doens’ the invalidate what they are trying to do.

    And though the victim may say it was wrong, if she doens’t want to press the charges than the Da can’t quite go ahead with it.

    I hate celebs getting of easy, but I hate it even more when we try to make an example of them.

  25. Vannuccia says:

    It makes me sick to hear some people justifying the whole situation by saying he is a great director (debatable, at best), he is married with two children, etc, those facts are utterly irrelevant.

    Ask yourselves this- What sort of man sleeps with a 13 year old girl? The simple answer is a Pedophile and therefore why should he be treated any differently simply because he’s involved in Hollywood?

  26. barneslr says:

    “Polanski is not a pedofile”

    First of all, the word is “pedophile.” And, yes, that is what he is. When an adult has sex with a child, that is an act of pedophilia.

    Why should the charges be dropped? Just because he has successfully evaded justice for 30 years? No. I’m sorry that the victim feels the way she does, but it’s not her call. He is a dangerous person and should be forced to pay the price for the crime he knowingly committed.

    He is a danger and should be punished for his crimes.

  27. Asiont says:

    I saw a documentary film about this case, and the whole thing is not that easy, it’s even possible that Polanski was a victim and not that girl.
    she changed her verion many times, I would not be that naive to belive her

  28. omg says:

    @ Abby: Who cares if other countries have death penality, too? how does this affect the circumstance, that in the US already innocent people got executed? Only one example:

    Just ask any attorney, just do it. Everyone knows stories of innocent beeing prosecuted and guilty people got free. Maybe its impossible to get 100% right decicions in court – but if that is the case, then you cant kill people by law.

    Sure, theres no death penality on pedophilia – but i used the example to illustrate, that even on the biggest crimes like murder the court dont necessary decides right. Ever heard of “Uhhh, he has that expensive star-attorney, his chances of not being prosecuted are now good” – why do you think one is able to make such a statement if only the innocence / guilt of people in court is important?

    I dont say hes innocent. I just say if u go to a court, then beeing innocent doesnt grant you exemption from punishment. Thats a pretty good reason for me.

  29. Anne Capaldi says:

    The saying ” in order for evil to flourish-good people should do nothing”. I think applies here. This man who commited crimes against a 13 yr old minor-CAN NOT WALK FREE. He must pay some sort of penalty. There are many who say it happened so long ago-LET IT GO AND LET HIM GET ON WITH HIS LIFE. Just because he is rich and famous gives him no license to violate a young 13 yr. old. I think of Edward Kennedy. If he was not rich and famous and belonged to the Kennedy family-He would have not gotten away with what he did either.

  30. ann wilson says:

    A lot of other people went through the Holocaust and have had family members murdered but they did not use this as an excuse to commit a vile act against a innocent 13 yr old. No matter how old she looked, or how she was dressed, he drugged her, raped and sodomized her, over her protests. Because he ran makes him guilty and he is guilty, he pled guilty. He has been free long enough and has been living the good life. Now it is time to pay the piper and spend some jail time along with that disgusting Woody Allen. If I was WA I would keep my mouth shut. I give credit to Kirstie Alley, who had the guts to speak out against him. As far as I know she is the only one with guts. Thanks Kirstie.