Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Yes Some Folks Actually Think Polanski Should Walk Free

  Polanski in court in 1978

"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."
Polanski victim Samantha Geimer

Pedophile fugitive filmmaker Roman Polanski was finally captured by law enforcement authorities after 31 years on the run following drugging and raping a 13 year old girl at Jack Nicholson's house in 1977.  Polanski, then 44, was supposed to turn himself over to authorities in 1978 but instead ran to France who would not extradite the award winning director to the US as the frogs view child rape as more of a hobby than a crime.

Wikipedia gives the following description of the crime from the victim's point of view:

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.

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."

Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the Mulholland area home of actor Jack Nicholson in 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".
Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug, then kissed her, performed cunnilingus on her, penetrated her vaginally, and then penetrated her anally, each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.

Over the weekend Polanski, now 76, was arrested in Switzerland on his way to a film festival; the Swiss do have an extradition treaty with the US.  Despite Polanski's horrific crime, his supporters are pointing to the "Stockholm Syndrome" reaction of his vicitm, now 44.

Polanski "penetrated her anally, each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop."

Amazingly self proclaimed vicitm's advocate Celeste Fremon is writing off Polanski's crime as no big deal saying that prosecution would bankrupt the LA County DA's office and be an equal injustice to the victim as Polanski's crime.  Stay tuned.

Labels: , , ,


Blogger Joseph Mailander said:

This is a bungle by Cooley that will end up pissing off a lot of people in Washington. There are literally over a thousand more recent rape cases that need careful persecution. If extradition is successful, this will set every one of them back. I'm sure it has already pissed off people in Washington, who wish an overzealous DA wouldn't meddle with international politics. It sets us back a little with allies in Europe--it's not worth it.

September 29, 2009 5:20 AM  

Blogger Jerzy said:

Some folks in the USA want to make a big show to earn big money and fame. I mean folks like the Austrian American Arnold Schwarzenegger who happens to be an unsuccessful LA Governor, an ex-bodybuilder and a mean actor. In Poland (and in the majority of European countries) the crime committed by Mr.Polanski is outdated and is not persecuted by the law anymore.

September 29, 2009 6:05 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

the silly thing is if he just comes back, the court system will cut him lose. They have no case at this point and it is chock full of problems. Watch.

September 29, 2009 7:03 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Outrageous. JUdge Rittenband withdrew from the plera bargain after receiveing a probation report from a 120 day evaluation that Polanski was a "sexual predator" and thus apt to do it again.

When offered a trial, Polanski split.

Let's see if he wants a trial this time.

I say "Hooray for Steve Cooley. A prosecutor who upholds the law."

September 29, 2009 7:15 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

If you do the crime you must do the time.

This animal should pay for the crime he did on a child.

Thank God today these child molestors are taken more seriously by police and society.

September 29, 2009 7:22 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

To Anon 7:19 :

You have got it now, pal.

IN the Valley there are over 800 votes at the Jeish Home for the Aging. You think th elocals don't do exactly what yu propose?

That's twice as many votes as the fool got and they are all ther, in one place, just for the picking.

But that is called "running for office".

Amateurs complain, pros make it happen.

That's why Krekorian and Essel are in the run off in CD 2. Duh.

September 29, 2009 7:56 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Polanski is going down.

he will come back, be sentenced, do a little time, and be a Hollywood hero.

But, justice will be served.

Just keep your daughters away from him.

September 29, 2009 7:58 AM  

Blogger Michael Higby said:

Joseph this is not something Cooley sought out but was dropped on his lap. The warrant for Polanski has been out there ever since. All it took was for him to either travel to the US or a country with an extradition agreement to trigger it. He is obligated to adhere to the warrant.

And after reading the account of the rape god bless the Swiss! This was not some 16 year old who thought it would be cool to bang a celebrity; this was a child who was drugged and violently raped against her wishes.

Polanski needs to rot in jail.

September 29, 2009 8:24 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


September 29, 2009 8:32 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Does this issue affect any of the readers in any way? Couldn't you have just let this go?

September 29, 2009 9:21 AM  

Blogger Joseph Mailander said:

That's BS, Michael; this was obviously triggered by the death of Susan Atkins, who murdered Polanski's wife and unborn child. This DA is counting on the fact that a new generation will forget all about the fact that Polanski's wife and unborn child were brutally murdered in the most notorious and horrific LA homicide in the past half-century, because needs to prove he's a Republican lawman who likes to hang 'em high and bring 'em to justice.

So many DAs, from the Kobe case to the Duke University case to this one, try to cover their overall prosecutorial errors by prosecuting high-profile rape cases--this one thirty-two years old--and only end up not only squandering the public's resources, but failing to prosecute far more certain rape cases as a result of it.

And while your arguing the merits of this vast squandering of resources that is certain only to let more rapists roam the streets while a 76-year-old man who is no risk to anyone spends two years embarrassing the County, I wish you'd kindly refrain from attacking other writers like Celeste who have a differing opinion than yours, and stick with the political and criminal facts alone. You are kind of tipping your hand when you use the case to attack liberals--I'm sure that's what Cooley wishes to use the case to do too. But it won't work, and it's another Republican hypocrisy to imagine that we have unlimited resources to prosecute all criminals, even when they're living in exile, and even after they've already spent jail time.

September 29, 2009 9:39 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Joe M has the right take on this, and Higby shows his utter ignorance once again to say that Celeste and those who agree with her somehow don't think this was a heinous crime. (The Times' Goldstein made this a front-page story and is the one who shows some sympathy for Polanski's suffering, not Fremon - but again you don't mention THAT, just more selective and uninformed bashing to cater to your rightwing mob.)

It's priorities, stupid, that Cooley is choosing to make a show trial out of this while REAL rapists, murderers are out there because their DNA kits can't be tested. If he were an average person Cooley wouldn't be hounded him 30 years later. He wants a name for himself and he's getting one. Including dredging up serious prosecutorial misconduct.

And yes, this is creating such an international backlash just as Obama and his administration have managed to make America palatable in the international world agian. (Whatever one thinks of the healthcare issue.) Cooley is the epitome of the "Redneck Agenda."

He wanted a "name" for himself: he's getting one alright, maybe finally will have ALL his dirty deeds and prosecutorial misconduct and vendettas exposed. His office has lied and committed felony to conspire to cover-up misconduct so many times, this may FINALLY get the attention he DESERVES, not the attention he craves.

September 29, 2009 9:44 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Higby at 8:24 adds to his ignorance of the matter: "god bless the Swiss" who suddenly read what a bad man he was and put him in jail.

He's owned a house in Switzerland for 10 years, traveled there often and was about to get a huge award that was to lift the profile of the city of Zurich and make them money. Polanski was arrested at the airport by Swiss authorities in compliance with a valid warrant but they are angry that their soil and image has been compromised as the battle-ground for a US issue, that is very unpopular in Europe.

People are pointing to America's dragging them into Iraq and Afghanistan, putting them into the middle of the Arab-Jewish-American quagmire, but America blows its international capital on THIS?

OF course Cooley and his acolytes including the idiots who support his protege Trutnuch can't think of the big picture, and believe with Higby that their provincial views are shared not scorned by the world. Well now they're all international pariahs, which is appropriate, but we ALL look bad, and just plain can't afford this waste of resources when rapists and felons are on our streets now threatening and murdering young girls, youths, even babies.

September 29, 2009 9:53 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

7:15, if your argument is some report from 31 years ago, guess that was proven wrong, wasn't it? What Polanski did then was disgusting and horrible, but he's the first to admit it - far from being a repeat offender his life shows opposite. So that's an argument against yourself, genius. Some shrink just guessed wrong. And I think Polanski should have done time then BUT then as now, he got wind that he was going to be made an example of and get an extra-harsh sentence, because he was a celebrity. Justice was not "blind" then or now when it comes to prosecutors wanting a name for themselves.

September 29, 2009 9:56 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

You know what Michael?

I wanted to agree with your angle in this article... until you used racially-charged name-calling in it("frogs" for French.) Takes a lot of your credibility and throws it in the round file.

September 29, 2009 10:31 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

First, it's not just Stockholm Syndrome. The victim settled a civil lawsuit against Polanski which means she got a lot of money and probably will continue to get a lot of money if he doesn't go to jail. What he did was sick. But more importantly, there has always been a tradition in this country that (at least in theory) we don't have different rules for the rich and successful than we do for the average person. If you let a rich and powerful person thumb his nose at the rules, you destroy the whole system Good for Cooley for doing what he should instead of being like his predecessor and just forgetting about Polanski.

September 29, 2009 10:49 AM  

Anonymous The Ghost of Chief Parker said:

I know this Roman Polanski thing is very important to the lives of people reading this blog, but are you aware of the emergency budget talks going on at City Council today, here in Los Angeles, that are going to be affecting your lives?

It's about the worst, doomsday scenario in the history of municipalities. Almost as important as this or speculating on Walter Moore for CD 12 when he already told Phil that he wasn't interested, and posted it anyway.

I would have said, "slow news day?" But it's not a slow news day, at all. The most important information ever provided regarding furloughs and the budget is happening today.

You should go back to the early history of this blog and re-read the posts and see what this blog used to be about.

September 29, 2009 11:13 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Who do you think would win in a fight? Iron Man or Super Man? I think Iron Man would win. And I agree with the person who said Iron Man is better and shame on the person who said Superman would win. Superman is a racist and a carpetbagger. He's not even from this planet. He should be handed over to ICE and extradited back to his home planet. There are many other things we can go back and forth on today. People just love a good pissing contest and a chance to deliver that fatal blow argument that discredits the other forever and all the riches will swing your way.

September 29, 2009 11:19 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This IS an important issue with international raminifications, but way over the heads of Higby and most of the readers of this blog, who use it as an excuse to bash liberals by totally misconstruing their views.

how about the fact that idiots on council are considering a motion TODAY that would require all new construction INCLUDING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO HAVE GRAFFITI- PROOF COATING which is expensive and ugly, OR sign a statement that they will remove any graffiti within 72 hours. So now graffiti "artists" can ruin someone's house knowing the owner will be required to remove it or be the one fined.

Also, they've voted to CUT LAPD from the 10,000 that makes us barely safe - fallen prey to Police Protective League's take that it's more important to retain the salaries and pensions of those on the force now. Even Koretz as new head of public safety. Any wonder Bratton's leaving with this bunch? He's done his part - whoever takes over will have to maintain public safety with a reduced force, in a city that's been bought by the union whose interests are NOT those of any Chief's, which is doing the best job for the public AND his troops.

September 29, 2009 12:00 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Polanski's attorneys brought this on themselves and Polanski.

In the latest round of briefs, Polanki's attorneys alleged that the LA DA was intentionally not having him arrested because they were "covering up" prosecutorial misconduct.

By doing so, they literally stuck their finger in Cooley's eye. Not a cool thing to do, by any means.

They literally dared him to have Polanski extradited and now he's doing it.

If I was Polanski, I'd be shopping for new counsel just about now. I consider this to be a capital mistake by Dalton et al.

September 29, 2009 1:15 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Polanski skipped out at the sentencing and people want to reward him for being so successful in eluding the law?

If he has complaints, he can go to court and set them out. I think rape is pretty serious no matter how much Hollywood people like Polanski. The idea of Susan Atkins death being the trigger for the D.A. to get Polanski is unlikely. If anything, it reminds people that a pregnant Sharon Tate was murdered by her and the others in the Manson Family, and Polanski was left a widower, evoking a little sympathy for him, and nothing for the D.A.

I think there's a little more lead time needed for the process to reach execution readiness on the warrant in a foreign country.
And the 11:19 scenario: You can't extradite Superman's to his home planet; it's more like a deportation meeded.
But that's moot- Krypton exploded right after Jor-El, Superman's bio father, sent him off in a rocket, remember?
He was able to save his infant son, Kal-El, sending him in a homemade rocketship to Earth just moments before Krypton's demise. per Wikipedia.

The real point of all this is that there's two kinds of justice, and how much can you afford? This is what's needed to clean up some of that notion that still lingers.

By the way, what's Fabian Nunez' son going to do now with a fellow defendant testifying against him for the murder case?

Too many arbitrary variances in criminal law: charging, sentencing and probations/paroles, and then you wonder why City Council feels so free to eff things up willy-nilly, and think nothing of it.

in cd-14

September 29, 2009 2:22 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

If Roman Polanski f*&ked my 13 year old daughter in the *ss, you can bet I'd want him dead. After 30 minutes or after 30 years. I wouldn't care.

Patrick Goldstein's column in the Times compared his crime and the decades long hunt for him to Jean Val Jean in Les Miserable. Of course, the crime there was stealing a loaf of bread to feed his hungry family.

I'd say raping a 13 year old is a little different.

Everyone talks about the lack of resources to prosecute a case like this and Polanski has suffered enough already.

Are you completely insane?

He hasn't suffered enough until he gets *ss f*&ked after he says, "NO, NO, STOP!"

If this was anyone's daughter, sister or mother, I doubt you'd be so quick to forgive and forget and no amount of money is worth letting someone go unpunished for the despicable crime of raping a child.

September 29, 2009 4:16 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I would say that the fact leaders in foreign governments have contacted Hillary Clinton to ask her to intervene on Polanski's behalf makes this a good subject for discussion.

The idea some foreigners have is that you make exceptions for the talented and important, this country was founded on a different ideal and it's important for our politicians who are supposed to be public servants to understand that.

There is probably nothing going on today that is more important than this case, because some people in other countries have made it an issue about whether the egalitarian concept of law enforcement in America is appropriate. If Polanski gets off (as way too many rich people do) it will just increase the abuses by those that already have power and who already believe that the rules don't apply to people like them.

September 29, 2009 5:21 PM  

Blogger Foxy LA Lady said:

Thank you Mike, I agree with you 100%. Hollywood has so many "stars" who think they can do whatever they want to whomever they want; IF they have dinner with the "right" politician.

Some of these "stars" think if they give money to a cause that rescues animals (for instance), that this somehow justifies them to abuse the young and innocent looking for a moment in the spotlight. If the finger gets pointed at the “star” that is where the quid pro quo comes in with the “political clout.”

Polanski raped a 13-year old girl who is so screwed up in the head that she now thinks he did nothing wrong. He sodomized her while she was on drugs! Hello? Wonder if Polanski heard of Andrew Adleman!


I don't want to see this guy get one more day as a free man. Monsters like him should not be walking the streets.

One of the reasons I like this blog is because it tells it like it is and it does not treat people like they are stupid. Thank you for blogging about this.

September 29, 2009 6:18 PM  

Blogger Rita Of Sunland/Wally Wharton said:

Whoa. Hold on, everybody. The 13 year-old girl is now 44 years-old--the exact same age as Polanski was when he molested and raped her! Doesn't that just smack w/ irony? So okay, how can this gal exact revenge "2009-style?" Let's see, she's 44 now, Polanski's 76, it happened in the 70's,... she was 13 carry the three, anally raped ..... I'VE GOT IT: ELDER ABUSE! Woo-hooo!

September 29, 2009 7:45 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Polanski is THE PIG. Too bad he was not home when the Mansons visited his house.

September 29, 2009 8:38 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

To Joseph M.
Pseudo men like you never had a child and have absolutely no idea of what it means to have a man of 44 drug and rape your little girl.
5 minutes with you pal and I'd show you what it means to be a victim. You and all your liberal friends should serve this country. Grab a rifle and stand at post. Learn what it means to be an American. Jerkoff!

September 29, 2009 8:39 PM  

Anonymous Steven D. Schulberg said:

Deranged "progressives" like Mailander and his gal Celeste are so sick they want to make Polanski's case an issue of right vs. left. Its a crime you maleficent asshole and not one you can puff eruditely about.

Or perhaps you like fucking 13 year olds up the ass as well?

Speaking as a liberal who got his ass kicked by cops in Century City in 1967 and in Mississippi in 1964 the modern left and its lack of a moral compass makes me vomit.

And no I'm not a Republican.

September 29, 2009 9:05 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

4:16 PM if you left your 13 yr old daughter at some sleazy actor's house with another grown man to "take photos" I would hold YOU almost as responsible as the rapist.

Also if extraditing a rapist is going to affect relations with the namby-pamby Europeans I say here's a tissue. Grown up/

September 30, 2009 6:45 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Joseph Mailander - having your wife and unborn child murdered does not give ytou carte blanche to drug and rape someone else's child. And that's from a European!

Jerzy - that crime is still prosecuted in the civilised parts of Europe - I assume you're not from one of them

September 30, 2009 3:35 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Polanski also screwed Natasia Kinski when she was underage - something his supporters are conveniently forgetting. He seems to like little girls.

September 30, 2009 3:36 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

8:39....THANK YOU!!!! Only a parent would understand!! I love my kids very much!!! I don't know this Mr. M. but if I could, I'd say- stay away from my girl!!! I don't care what age she is. How could I trust that you'd protect her. You probably would throw her in the ring & watch her being used.. So much for you being so "liberal".

I disgusted female....

October 02, 2009 9:51 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home