She was raped. Who Says: ‘I Was Fine. I’m Still Fine.’ - Roman Polanski Discussion

[–] Ranb (10318) 2 years ago

This is an example of how society blames the victim while turning on them.

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

She's entitled to process her trauma whatever way she likes/needs to. This *crime* was done to her. It's not for us to judge her. That said, it was still a crime, and it's possible that she was gaslit/made to feel it wasn't a big deal. Once again, that's her prerogative, but that doesn't remotely excuse Polanski for drugging a *child* and proceeding to have sex with her.

reply

[–] DancingintheDark (1737) 2 years ago

Well said.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Hold up now, is this coming from the same guy who defended a civilian who pulled a shotgun on an unarmed civilian because the victim didn't seem to have a problem with it? Wow. Just wow.

"He's so likeable that *even* the minority male he pulled a shotgun on, supported his bid for the Senate."

Double standard much?

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

One thing has NOTHING to do with the other, and even if I was 'wrong' on that issue, can't you just leave it and move on?

FWIW, I do regard drugging and raping a child, even a child who has apparently 'forgiven' her assailent, to be worse than what John Fetterman did (not that I'm defending or excusing the latter).

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Yeah, you did defend it and excuse it. I'm just pointing it out.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11442) a year ago

It wasn't a trauma, she said it herself. I think we need laws in place to stop predatory behavior, but that doesn't mean she can't enjoy sex at her age. This obviously was an experience she was ok with. If a 13 year pld boy has sex with a older women, I guarantee he thought it was awesome, not traumatic.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4256) a year ago

She didn't consent to it. She repeatedly said no, saying she enjoyed being sodomized by a man 30 years her senior is a huge reach.

reply

[–] JFZ (1459) a year ago

What trauma? Take your meds

reply

[–] DancingintheDark (1737) 2 years ago

You need to/should edit your post, as you’re misquoting her, I could be mistaken but from what I’m reading she doesn’t say “rape” in the quote you used…, “I didn’t even know it was illegal, that someone could be arrested for it. I was fine, I’m still fine. The fact that we’ve made this [a big deal] weighs on me terribly. To have to constantly repeat that it wasn’t a big deal, it’s a terrible burden.”

Not defending Roman here, I just think her words should be quoted as they were said, unless I’m missing something or course, then disregard.

reply

[–] AckbarsRevenge (3800) 2 years ago

He's a notorious antisemite. That's what they do. Lie, deceive, spread misinformation.

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

What specifically is 'anti-Semitic' about the OP's post?

They do seem to be victim-blaming, but I'm not sure where the 'anti-Semitic' part comes from. Geimer isn't Jewish, is she? Polanski is, of course, but I hope *no-one* is suggesting that he isn't a rapist...Are you?

reply

[–] MCguy (1294) 2 years ago

Whoopi Goldberg doesn't think Polanski is a rapist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHflBPU-DtA

From the feminist POV. https://jezebel.com/whoopi-on-roman-polanski-it-wasnt-rape-rape-5369395

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Yeah, and...?

Is Whoopi Goldberg an authority on this subject?

Scanning through the Jezebel article, not even they believe she is.

reply

[–] MCguy (1294) 2 years ago

You posted "I hope *no-one* is suggesting that he isn't a rapist..." and you change tunes when presented with a person who suggested just that. Your AI coding is not comprehending what what it "wrote" vs. the meaning.

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

I'm well aware that there are idiots in La La Land, who have defended and excused Polanski's actions.

I'm saying that I hope there is no-one *on this board* who thinks what he did was 'okay'.

reply

[–] MCguy (1294) 2 years ago

Can you be clear? Who is a notorious antisemite?

reply

[–] AckbarsRevenge (3800) 2 years ago

OP

reply

[–] MCguy (1294) 2 years ago

thanks for clarification

reply

[–] DancingintheDark (1737) 2 years ago

Thanks for asking😅

reply

[–] strntz (12736) 2 years ago

She wouldn't be the first underage girl who had sex with an adult who was fine with it (read about some cult marriages). Of course, it doesn't change the morality of it by any means.

The other four women who have accused him also weren't "fine" with it.

reply

[–] MCguy (1294) 2 years ago

It doesn't matter if she is "fine" with it. An underage child cannot give consent. The act is illegal in California and the USA. He pleaded guilty. He went on the lam rather than doing his powderpuff sentence.

Are you channeling Whoopi?

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

TBF, I think you're both saying the same thing (i.e. however Geimer feels about the rape, it matters not with respect to whether Polanski is or isn't guilty of raping a child). I mean, good for Geimer if she is able to 'get over' the abuse (and even if she doesn't believe it to be abuse, it was technically abuse). There's nothing feminist or righteous about wishing a rape survivor to permanently feel traumatised (although the sad and understandable truth is that many survivors are).

reply

[–] strntz (12736) 2 years ago

Thanks. I think MCguy either reads too fast or not too well...

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

There seems to be a trend for people to deliberately misunderstand what others have said, in order to make their own point, instead of simply saying "Yeah, I agree," or "You have a point, but I'd also add this..."

reply

[–] stickman38 (3418) 2 years ago

"Rape" is usually a word associated with violence and the act of physically forcing someone against their will to do something sexual. Apparently that's not what happened here. In fact, Geimer has admitted that she was sexually active at that age. So, I guess she didn't have any issues with doing it with Roman. I don't know what you would call this, a 'victimless crime' maybe?

But it's really not that uncommon for young people to do sexual things. A simple google search can pull up all kinds of true stories on various forums with people talking about the sexual things they did when they were underage. Not that this is simply an excuse for what Polanski did but it could explain why Geimer doesn't really feel like a victim in all this.

reply

[–] strntz (12736) 2 years ago

Victimless crime? It doesn't matter what Geimer felt about it. It's rape by any definition for an adult male to have sex with an underage girl. The fact that he drugged her only makes it more heinous, but even if he didn't, he still raped her.

But was she OK with it? From the trial:

"I didn't want to have sex," Geimer wrote in The Girl. "But apparently that is what was going to happen."

Geimer, disoriented and confused from champagne and pills, faked an asthma attack to get out of the hot tub. She put her underwear back on, and Polanski followed her into the house. According to Geimer’s testimony before a grand jury, this is what happened:

Q: What did you do when he said, “Let’s go in the other room?”

A: I was going, “No, I think I better go home,” because I was afraid. So I just went and I sat down on the couch.

Q: What were you afraid of?

A: Him. … He sat down beside me and asked me if I was okay.

Q: What did you say, if anything?

A: I said, “No.”

Q: What did he say?

A: He goes, “Well, you’ll be better.” And I go, “No, I won’t. I have to go home.”

Q: What happened then?

A: He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, “No,” you know, “keep away.” But I was kind of afraid of him because there was no one else there.

Geimer went on to testify that Polanski licked her vulva, over her protestations (in a moment that reads as very young in the transcript, she says that he “began performing cuddliness”), and then vaginally raped her. “I was mostly just on and off saying, ‘No, stop,’” she said. “But I wasn’t really fighting because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go.”

“He goes, ‘Would you want me to go in through your back?’”
“No,” she said, but according to her testimony, Polanski ignored her and sodomized her.

When it was over, Geimer went out to the car and cried. Polanski drove her home and told her not to tell anyone.

reply

[–] stickman38 (3418) 2 years ago

And now days she seems to ignore all of this. So, was it true? Or was she making it up because the cops were involved in it and she didn't want to act as though she consented to it? Now days she acts like she wanted to do it...

No matter what happened between these two, there is no way someone her age can come out and say she consented and actually "enjoyed it". That would make her a "slut" in the eyes of many.

Even today, its always going to be an act of "rape" because of the social climate surrounding older/younger relations. I don't like what happened here but will I lose any sleep over it? nope....

But if her testimony is in fact true, Roman should have done more jail time.

reply

[–] strntz (12736) 2 years ago

And now days she seems to ignore all of this. So, was it true? Or was she making it up because the cops were involved in it and she didn't want to act as though she consented to it? Now days she acts like she wanted to do it...

For argument's sake, let's say she lied and wanted to have sex with Polanski. It doesn't change anything nor should it. Even if she was the one in a million 13 year old girls who could emotionally handle doing drugs and having sex with an adult male, it doesn't change what Polanski did.

But wait, there's more!

In 2010, British actress Charlotte Lewis said that Polanski sexually abused her “in the worst possible way” in 1983, when she was 16 and working on his movie Pirates. “He took advantage of me, and I have lived with the effects of his behavior ever since it occurred," Lewis said. "All I want is justice."

Then there was Robin M. in August, who alleges that Polanski assaulted her when she was a child. She said that she told one friend at the time of the incident, but did not tell anyone else for fear that her father would “do something that might cause him to go to prison for the rest of his life.” Now, she wants Polanski extradited to the US for sentencing in Geimer’s case. “I am not over it,” she says.

Earlier this month came Polanski’s fourth accuser, Langer. According to the New York Times, Langer says that Polanski contacted her through her modeling agency when she was 15 and told her he was interested in casting her in a movie. She went to visit him, she says, and he raped her in his home. A few months later he called her, apologized, and told her he wanted to cast her in his movie. He promised her that he would behave professionally toward her. Then after filming started, he got her alone and raped her again. Langer told only her boyfriend, and is coming forward now in part because her parents are dead, so they can’t be hurt by the news.

“This had an influence on all of my life,” she said.

reply

[–] stickman38 (3418) 2 years ago

"" one in a million 13 year old girls who could emotionally handle doing drugs and having sex with an adult male""

You really think the odds are that great? Have you ever been a teenager? lol...

I know I would have done something sexual with someone older than me if given the opportunity when I was that age. And judging by some of the things I've read on the topic, people are having sex by the time they're 12 now days and sometimes younger.

I doubt having sex with someone older would make that much of a difference.

But sure, according to "the law" it doesn't really matter if she consented or not. The law holds the trump card on human sexuality. Personally, I would rather have doctors and psychologists making those decisions. In fact, I've seen cases on this topic of people getting prison time that I didn't think was justified. Cases like a 20 year old sleeping with a 17 year old and getting prison time etc..etc..

Stuff like this is not justified in my view.

As far as Polanski goes, he could be a rapist, I don't know for sure, his behavior has been very suspicious, I suppose we will never know unless he ends up in court over it. A lot of people thought Micheal Jackson was a molester until he was found not guilty in court.

reply

[–] strntz (12736) 2 years ago

And judging by things things I've read on the topic, people are having sex by the time they're 12 now days and sometimes younger.

Yes, we see them on Dr. Phil.

I'm not surprised at all that there are people would find no problem with adult men raping or even having "consensual" sex with 13 year old girls, but I am surprised that anyone would defend them that publicly.

reply

[–] stickman38 (3418) 2 years ago

So doing something sexual at a young age is a sure way to get on Dr Phil? You can't be serious!

I wouldn't say people are "defending" it but the point is, Geimer herself is starting to sound like it wasn't that big of a deal. Which means, she probably wasn't "raped".

I still can't get over the fact that her mother literally drove her to that house and left her there alone with a grown man to "pose" for pictures. No way I would do this, would you? So, was it all a setup or what? Polanski should have insisted that her mother stay there in order to avoid something like this but the dude is probably a pervert and thought it was his opportunity to have sex with a young girl.

But I felt pretty bad for Polanski when he lost Sharon in such a horrific way. That is probably enough to mess anyone up.

reply

[–] strntz (12736) 2 years ago

It does NOT matter how the victim feels - adult males having sex with 13 year old girls is rape even if consensual, and the fact that her mother acted stupidly shouldn't fall on the victim.

But Geimer didn't think it "wasn't that big of a deal":

"I didn't want to have sex," Geimer wrote in The Girl. "But apparently that is what was going to happen."

Geimer, disoriented and confused from champagne and pills, faked an asthma attack to get out of the hot tub... According to Geimer’s testimony before a grand jury, this is what happened:

Q: What did you do when he said, “Let’s go in the other room?”

A: I was going, “No, I think I better go home,” because I was afraid. So I just went and I sat down on the couch.

Q: What were you afraid of?

A: Him. … He sat down beside me and asked me if I was okay.

Q: What did you say, if anything?

A: I said, “No.”

Q: What did he say?

A: He goes, “Well, you’ll be better.” And I go, “No, I won’t. I have to go home.”

Q: What happened then?

A: He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, “No,” you know, “keep away.” But I was kind of afraid of him because there was no one else there.

Geimer went on to testify that Polanski licked her vulva, over her protestations (in a moment that reads as very young in the transcript, she says that he “began performing cuddliness”), and then vaginally raped her. “I was mostly just on and off saying, ‘No, stop,’” she said. “But I wasn’t really fighting because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go.”

“He goes, ‘Would you want me to go in through your back?’”
“No,” she said, but Polanski ignored her and sodomized her.

When it was over, Geimer went out to the car and cried. Polanski drove her home and told her not to tell anyone. Later that night, Geimer told her boyfriend what had happened. Her mother overheard and called the police, and the next night Polanski was arrested

reply

[–] stickman38 (3418) 2 years ago

'Rape' as in forcing someone against their will or just the technical term law enforcement uses to give maximum credence to the charges laid against someone? You see, they can't just say "consensual sex" then it would seem like nothing really happened. They have to call it rape to give them a good reason to put someone in prison for 20 years. That's how law enforcement works, they're in the business of putting people in prison. Which is why I do get a little suspicious of police work when it comes to sexual situations.

And you can keep going with the copy and paste if you want but as of today, Geimer is basically denying that it happened. So, whatever may have actually taken place we probably won't ever know but Polanski is not someone I would leave my kids alone with, that's for sure.

Of course, the mother probably didn't think anything like this could happen with someone of Polanski's stature. But it just goes to show that you can't just leave your kids alone with adults even if they're a famous person. At the very least, other people need to be present if you're going to do this.

This situation does remind of the 50s and 60s music scene with all those teen girls screaming at The Beatles and Elvis. lol.. I wonder how many of them would have gone home with them to "pose" for pictures. Probably quite a few...

reply

[–] strntz (12736) 2 years ago

You see, they can't just say "consensual sex" then it would seem like nothing really happened.

So nothing happened? A 13 year old girl can't consent. Neither can a 10 year old girl. Or a 5 year old girl - even if they say right out loud it's OK. You're OK with a 13 year old girl being drugged and having sex with adult men, but I wonder, at what age would you draw the line?

Of course, the mother probably didn't think anything like this could happen with someone of Polanski's stature.

Again, the mother's lack of protecting her daughter from scum predators doesn't change the crime.

I get it, you're OK with adult men drugging and having sex with 13 year old girls if they protest enough or even if they don't protest at all. I'm just surprised that anyone would admit it.

reply

[–] GirlNamedSue (241) 2 years ago

Thank you SO much for saying that. 13 year old girls are not women if they are biologically. 13 year old girls cannot consent for good reason. Polanski took advantage of this girl and others. People who defend his actions are just as bad and blaming her mother for not protecting her does not excuse the rape.

reply

[–] strntz (12736) 2 years ago

And yet they do defend him, if not directly, then by a strawman defense.

Polanksi drugged and had sex with a 13 year old girl. That's the whole thing right there.

She didn't "ask" for it.

Her mother's inability to protect her doesn't give Polanski the right to target her.

Any previous sexual experience she might have had as nothing to do with a 40 year old perv drugging and having sex with a 13 year old.

reply

[–] stickman38 (3418) 2 years ago

If you want to have this conversation, you have to forget what the laws says for just a moment. I'm not arguing the law or whether or not it's okay for a man (or woman) to have sex with someone that's underage, I'm arguing whether or not it actually happened the way Geimer said it did.

But if you must make this a conversation about laws, then it's the impact of the word "rape" is what I'm referring too. That's why they call it "statutory rape" which actually means consensual sex with someone underage but they don't call it that, instead they use the word "rape". Of course, Roman was charged with 'unlawful sexual intercourse'. But regardless, I'm not sure what the sex laws were in the 70s. Either way, his behavior was very shady in this case. He probably should have done more jail time.

And to be honest, Geimer's testimony is not exactly concrete proof that he "forced her" to do anything or even coerced into it. The whole thing sounds very suspicious and if Polanski broke the law then he should have done more jail time. In fact, this is the 3rd time I've said this, so I'm not sure why you insist that I think it's okay for men to sleep with underage girls.

I will say this, I don't agree with some of our sex laws. When I see people in their early 20s getting long prison sentences for sleeping with willing 16 or 17 year olds, I see that as an injustice. Maybe you're okay with it, idk,but I don't agree with it.

Girls have been sleeping with older guys for decades. I remember back in my high-school days, I knew of at least 5 girls that were sleeping with older guys. It happens more often than we think. RP was in his 40s when this incident happened. That's a little weird. I don't care if there is a law against this. That is too much of an age difference. But I wouldn't call it the worst paraphilia. You know... some people think defecating and urinating on people is "sexy". I find that 100x more repulsive than just some old guy that wants to get it on with a young girl.

reply

[–] letess (1664) 2 years ago

He did more than rape to this girl. You need to read the original transcript. Since she decided not to testify, the charges were dismissed and unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor was the agreed conviction with a sentence of 90 days for evaluation and then probation. I assume the girl didn't want to pursue this as she wanted anonymity, plus she was promised $500K. When Polanski skipped out because he felt there was judicial misconduct, which was proven last year by unsealing docs, she didn’t get the money and she had to go to court. She ended up waiting 20 years to get compensation. “I’m fine with it”might just mean leave me alone, dismiss this, and follow through with compensation otherwise this is a never ending hell for this girl, now a grandmother. It sounds like you’re trying to make her out like she had this huge previous sexual experience at 13 and she was consensual. She didn’t and she wasn’t. She repeatedly said no. She’s wrote a book a while back. She’s not part of metoo. She doesn’t want him serving time. She doesn’t want him canceled. She wants it over.

reply

[–] stickman38 (3418) 2 years ago

Did she decide to not testify after she found out she was going to get a pay day?

Yeah, I am still trying to understand why they agreed to lower the charge to unlawful intercourse. Then on top of that, they allow him to leave the country. Polanski must have paid someone off so he could get out of the US. From what I understand and I could be wrong about this but I'm pretty sure you can't buy a plane ticket/get on a plane when you have pending criminal charges against you. So, how he was able to do this is a mystery.

The whole thing is quite controversial, no doubt. And I think I did read her original testimony one time. But her testimony is not exactly "proof" that a crime took place. I brought up her sexual history (which is according to her own words) not as a way to discredit her but to point out that young girls will sleep around.

However, I hate it that this happened to her, I mean, if it did, I am strongly against doing anything against the will of another. Forcing people to do sexual things is pretty sick. I hope people do leave her alone but writing a tell-all book was probably not a good move.

I remember one interview she did and the woman interviewing her got angry when Geimer refused to say anything negative about Polanski. I was really pissed at the interviewer. If she just doesn't want to talk about it, then fine. No reason to harass the woman.

reply

[–] letess (1664) 2 years ago

The prosecution was vilifying her as a Lolita. I don’t think she should have had to take the stand. They should have been able to prosecute. But her family agreed to plea bargain and lesser charge to put an end to all the frenzy. This was also 10 years after Manson. It seems they wanted to do everything to accommodate him and resolve the case. If he hadn’t had that photo op at Oktoberfest that set the judge off, the whole thing wouldn’t have escalated. $500K in 1978 must have been a huge amount. I’m sure she felt betrayed after not getting it. I don’t believe it was necessary to say she wasn’t a virgin. It doesn’t make sense. I think she wanted to make it seem like she wasn’t angry and tried to help him out. And it’s almost heartbreaking to think that she felt she had to do that to give him and those supporting him some kind of a reprieve. Since the court failed her, she was probably hoping to still negotiate. The thing is people think he skipped out of doing time when in actuality if he had shown up for sentencing, the time was very minimal. So there’s really no point in saying he should have done the time because it would only have been less than 4 months. Maybe. Separately, Mia Farrow flew to London to help him in his libel trial, where he denied a claim that he tried to seduce a woman days after his wife’s brutal murder. That trial was in 2005.

He’s not doing so well in the last couple of years in France. He’s feeling the metoo from French actresses (BalanceTonPorc or "out your pig"). He’s showing his new movie at Cannes (or Berlin).

reply

[–] stickman38 (3418) 2 years ago

I suppose it would be tough on any rape victim to take the stand and then have to describe in detail what happened to them to a courtroom full of people, that would suck. However, I guess her book went into detail. I haven't read it.

Although, I noticed that a few of the pictures RP took of her are circulating around on the internet. I have to admit, some of them are quite provocative. I haven't seen any of the nudes he took of her but the kitchen pictures are very, risque. Which is surprising for someone her age.

Still, no excuse for her rapist. I mean, if that's what happened. I'm not totally convinced that he took her by force....

Those pictures might have been enough for the prosecution to get away with the "lolita" defense. But he still would have been charged with unlawful sex anyways. It really seems like a setup though, I mean, how convenient that she's willing to take erotic pictures, including some nudes, and take pictures in a hot tub holding a glass of champagne etc... it seems like RP walked right into it. What a sucker... lol...

reply

[–] letess (1664) 2 years ago

Maybe the thought of being a famous movie star and Polanski being a famous movie director. You can’t say a 13 would know what to do. I haven’t seen the photos. I didn’t know they existed. He’s done this many times. He’s always said, “I like young girls.” I don’t know if anyone thought to ask, how young. But in 1976 he did Tess. Natassja was 15. He was 43. She denies anything but it was mentioned. And then there’s her dad. I did like Repulsion. Chinatown is a masterpiece. I love Ghost Writer. I’d like to see the new movie The Palace and An Officer and a Spy. But he still really did some serious damage to this girl at 13 mentally and physically and sexually. I think someone trying to blame her is the wrong way to go. He’s a great artist with a history. Like many.

reply

[–] stickman38 (3418) 2 years ago

Fair enough, letess.

And yeah, I do agree that 13 is probably too young to think about what kind of situation this would put her in. That's when the parents are supposed to step in.

However, I do think it's a bit naive for us to think that teenagers are little angels that would never do anything bad and for certain wouldn't be willing to do anything sexual with someone that's older than they are. Anyone that's been a teenager should know this is not true at all.

I'm not saying she was definitely trying to suck money out of Polanski but I am slightly suspicious of the whole thing.

And yes, I'm pretty sure Polanski is on the pervy side. But who isn't? We all have a few kinks in the closet. Some are just more open about it than others and Polanski has been quite open about it.

I recently watched The Pianist. Great movie... but I actually haven't seen very many of his films. I'll have to check some of them out.

reply

[–] letess (1664) 2 years ago

He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and did the time. The judge changed the agreement of case as being dismissed. Judge reneged. There was dismay by both the prosecution and the defense. His powderpuff sentence changed overnight to 50 years.

reply

[–] strntz (12736) 2 years ago

Incorrect. Judges do NOT have to accept a plea deal. And they would not have given him 50 years. Most legal experts figure they wanted to give him another 90-180 days.

reply

[–] letess (1664) 2 years ago

But those were only revealed last year as they were sealed. If you see the documentary and what went on with the judge and how he kept changing his mind and he did have the authority to sentence him to 50 years. Polanski did plan to go to sentencing but was told by his attorney that the judge had changed the settlement plea as he didn’t want to be perceived as soft and he could serve up to 50 years. That’s what he was told. Even the prosecutor was in disbelief.

reply

[–] strntz (12736) 2 years ago

Even if that's true (I'll take your word on that), when do convicted rapists get to decide whether a sentence is too much?

reply

[–] letess (1664) 2 years ago

He pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. This other five really serious charges were dismissed for the plea bargain.

reply

[–] strntz (12736) 2 years ago

Let me rephrase: when do convicted sexual offenders get to decide whether a sentence is too much?

reply

[–] letess (1664) 2 years ago

The DA does. It’s been the protocol in criminal proceedings. The goal is to secure a conviction wo going through a trial. Judges usually go along with what the DA decides. When the girl decided not to testify, charges were dropped and the one remained where Polanski pleaded guilty. Polanski was correct when he said judge reneged. He was supposed to be released on probation. Judge was planning to sentence him to prison. Even if it stated 120 days - that’s what we found out last year. It could have been more. These negotiations are usually honored.

You can read this online. AP and PBS (I’m suggesting these bc the articles are free online), and there are other news sources. And you can see the documentary which shows the DA and the defense attorney in agreement. And then the judge who is now deceased. I think by reading and viewing these would answer your questions better than I am apparently not doing.

reply

[–] letess (1664) 2 years ago

She was not only raped, there is a list of other things I’d rather not list. But even these horrors pale in comparison (according to her) to the way the judge handled the case and being in the press for now going on 46 years. They’ve confirmed judicial misconduct. She’s a grandmother and this has had an affect on her family. People should see the 2008 documentary. You will see why Polanski left. He was all of sudden facing max of 50 years or so he was told. She has been quite verbal on things. She’s shown up in subsequent court sessions pleading to the judge. Let my family be. Dismiss this case. Even in absentia. The “I’m fine with it” Is just her plea, please leave me alone. She’s not part of metoo and if anything, she’s the complete opposite.

reply

[–] strntz (12736) 2 years ago

If Polanski was jailed as he should have been, maybe he wouldn't have the raped the other women.

reply

[–] letess (1664) 2 years ago

But there were those before her.

reply

[–] strntz (12736) 2 years ago

*And* after her..

reply

[–] letess (1664) 2 years ago

Well, when you said he might not have raped others with jail time implies after her. Certainly jail time could not help those before.

reply

[–] Porsche911 (3741) 2 years ago

Accusing him of rape is not kosher :

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7683307/amp/Roman-Polanskis-sex-attack-accusers-anti-Semitic-says-female-French-TV-director.html

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Trust the fucking French to defend a rapist...

Also, the French would know a thing or two about anti-Semitism (e.g. the Dreyfus Affair, the Vichy government etc). Fucking hypocrites.

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Imagine using this 'men married to beautiful women don't rape' defence in a court of law:

"Mr Weinstein can't be a serial rapist, your honour. Have you seen his wife? Plus, he's Jewish, and it would be 'anti-Semitic' to prosecute..."

reply

[–] Porsche911 (3741) 2 years ago

I’m not defending him ( far from it ) some here are screaming about being anti-Semitic for posting about this. This is celebrity news and this is moviechat. Sure we must have leverage to bring up the rape. But more than one disagree with me apparently. Ref the article in my post!

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

I wasn't attacking *you*. I was attacking the idiot French woman in the article you posted.

I'm sure you're not advocating her nonsense, and you're just highlighting that such idiots exist.

Am I correct?

reply

[–] Porsche911 (3741) 2 years ago

Yes you are and thanks!

reply

[–] DoctorThirteen (14658) 2 years ago

Her thoughts and opinions on it are her business, as is how she copes (assuming she even feels 'coping' is necessary). She knows how she felt then, she knows how she feels now. If she was/is genuinely 'fine' with it, so be it. No-one has the right to tell her how she 'should' feel. Doesn't change the legal position, of course.

reply

[–] DancingintheDark (1737) 2 years ago

Agreed.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

I hope she is genuinely fine with it, and found neither the experience or the aftermath traumatic.

That does NOT mean it's okay to ever do the same to any 13-year-old girl that ever lived or will live.

reply

[–] letess (1664) 2 years ago

She hated the judge more than Polanski. She’s now a grandmother and she’s tried to get the case dismissed as that was what the court had agreed upon. I can only imagine that her life in anonymity and with compensation would have been preferable to that of Polanski doing time. But, Polanski did plead guilty to a lesser charge and he did serve some time. The judge changed his mind after seeing him at photo op at Oktoberfest and there was now a possibility of a 50 yr sentence.

She hates that her life has been defined by this. Always in the limelight. Always a victim. She settled money wise with Polanski in the ‘90s - not sure if that happened as her attorneys said they didn’t get the money but she says he doesn’t owe her anything. Polanski was supposed to pay her $500K in the beginning. She had to go to court over it. So, betrayal after betrayal. Maybe the I’m fine with it has to do with that part too.

There’s a 2008 documentary of what happened with the prosecution, the judge and his defense attorneys. If Polanski did return to US he would additionally get a jail sentence for leaving before sentencing.

reply

[–] AviAAksenazi (670) 2 years ago

Former German actress Renate Langer reports to Swiss police that Polanski raped her at his Swiss home in 1972 when she was 15

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/movies/roman-polanski-rape-accusation.html

He liked kids, he loved to rape.

Mr. Polanski pleaded guilty in 1977 to unlawful sex with Samantha Geimer when she was 13.

In August, a woman in Los Angeles, identified only as Robin M., came forward at a news conference to report that Mr. Polanski had sexually assaulted her in 1973 when she was 16.

Mr. Polanski, she said, raped her in a bedroom of his home, and she described being unable to defend herself against him despite trying.

reply