Chapter 2. Rape?

If one reads the documents of the case, s/he won’t have any difficulties answering this essential question: what did the prosecution have to confirm the accusations? What did they have as evidence?

The answer is: Nothing. Zero. Nix.

The only thing they had was Samantha’s statement, never subjected to cross-examination, never tried in court (whose purpose is to separate the truth from lies in a given set of allegations), uncorroborated by anything, and being, as I will presently demonstrate, in direct contradiction with her medical examination result, other people’s statements, her own later statements, common logic and physical reality.

We’ll start with the bare facts of the case. In order to make an unbiased analysis, I’ll have to give the facts pertaining to the matter, whether or not they are in accordance with political correctness of today. Too much is at stake, so we can’t sacrifice the truth by omitting any of the important facts.

Early in 1977, Mr. Polanski was in the United States. There, he was approached by an acquaintance, Henri Sera, who, upon learning that Polanski was photographing young girls of the world for Vogue Homme (a French magazine),  suggested that he should photograph Sera’s girlfriend’s sister. Polanski agreed to meet the girl, and subsequently, to photograph her. The girl, Samantha Gailey, lived with her mother, who had already been divorced twice, older sister (previously institutionalized for Quaalude abuse) and mother’s boyfriend, who worked for a magazine called Marijuana Monthly.

The girl herself was an aspiring model, had already appeared in one TV commercial and a few months before had been photographed by a professional photographer (the black-and-white photograph of her looking over her shoulder is from that, earlier, session). Well-developed, characterized by her mother as “precocious”, by all the witnesses as looking about 18, and by her medical report as an “adult female”, she had already been sexually active for some time, had a 17-year-old boyfriend, and had been, in accordance to her own Grand Jury testimony, introduced to both alcohol and drugs. I am not saying this to “bash” her in any way – in the 70s, many girls started early, especially in Hollywood; many girls still do, even in your neighborhood – but because facts are facts: there was no innocent baby Polanski “molested”; she says in an interview, “It was embarrassing to be a virgin among my friends”. Whatever her calendar age, physically she was a young adult, and confirmed it by early partaking in the pleasures life and a permissive family (that’s how the probation officers described the family – not me) could offer.

They made one photo session, - during which she changed her blouses in front of him and posed topless without any objections – after which Polanski went to New York, then came back and on March 10 they had another session. A few photographs were taken at Victor Drai’s residence, but the light which at first was perfect didn’t last long (it was the wrong side of Mulholland drive for that time of day), and Polanski called Angelica Huston, Nicholson’s girlfriend at the time, to ask her if they could come to their place; Angelica wasn’t there but the caretaker, Helena Kalliniotes, said it was all right; so they went there.

Helena stated she “thought that [the girl] was approximately 18 years old and felt she was a girl trying to get into the movies. She also stated that Mr. Polanski and the girl acted as if they were lovers” (quoted by probation report). I ask you to pay attention to both her statements.

Since the girl said she was thirsty, Polanski (not a stranger in the house, where he had stayed on numerous occasions) opened the fridge, where was a bottle of champagne; Samantha had previously admitted liking champagne, and didn’t object to opening the bottle although, according to her own words, there was some water and juice in the fridge. He actually asked her if he should open it, as she testified:

And he said, “Should I open it?
And I went, “I don’t care,” you know.

Neither did Helena consider it objectionable – as we have seen, she (like everyone else) thought the girl to be much older. They poured three glasses, leaving the bottle still half full.

After this the caretaker left, and we won’t have more witnesses for some time, so all we have to do with is words and documents.

The fact is that more pictures were taken; subsequently, they called the mother and Polanski consulted her about the Jacuzzi pictures he was going to take. Mother expressed no concern but asked if she should, later, come for Samantha; in accordance to the Grand Jury testimony, Samantha refused:

And she says, ‘You want me to come pick you up?’ And I went, ‘No.’

Wait a second. Things are just starting to get interesting.

When mother was asked by Grand Jury if Polanski had at any time described to her what kind of photographs he was going to take, she just said, “No.” No Grand Juror inquired of the causes of this spectacular lack of curiosity – we’ll see later that the Jury was consistently uninquisitive at the moments that seem to have needed clarification – and just moved on with the questioning. I, on the contrary, would have tried to find out whether or not she had actually asked him, and if not, why not. Wasn’t she interested? Didn’t she care? More questions arise; ask Mom.

For example, why didn’t she accompany them to either of the sessions? His reputation as a womanizer was widely known. His affair with Nastassya Kinski – who was the age of consent in France, but not in the US - wasn’t a secret to anyone, and Samantha didn’t look any younger than Nastassya.

Q. Did you ask Mr. Polanski if you could go?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you say?
A. Well, I asked him on the phone in the time when we made the appointment for that day. And I asked him because I wanted to go along and take some pictures of the two of them, because I am sort of a photographer sometimes. And he said, no, that he would rather be alone with her because she will respond more naturally.

That’s all very nice to hear, especially the reason she gives for “wanting to go”. She must have realized that an apprehensive mother would either come along no matter what ‘he’ said, or just keep her daughter at home; not having done either, she opts for total innocence: what is more natural than letting one’s underage daughter, precocious and sexually active, go with a man well-known for both his promiscuity and his love of young women.

No, I am not “blaming mother”, or “blaming the victim”. I am making a different point, which presently will become obvious to anyone.

Back to that phone conversation: “want me to pick you up? – No.” Mother renders this part exactly like her daughter, and then goes on:

And then Polanski got on the phone and he said that they were at Jack Nicholson’s house, and the sun went down so fast that they didn’t get very many pictures, and there was artificial light there, and a Jacuzzi there, and that they were going to take some pictures there. And he apologized for her being late for supper. And that was that.
When he said Jacuzzi, I thought why a Jacuzzi? But I didn’t say anything. I mean, I just didn’t.

Precisely. Keep it in mind, we’ll come back to this later. Now, curioser and curioser.

When daughter is taken back home (and disappears in the bathroom where she, however, won’t take a shower or bath), Polanski shows mother, her boyfriend and Samantha’s sister the pictures from the previous session, as he promised earlier on that day.

And then all of a sudden there was a shot of Samantha bare to the waist with just her jeans on. And Kim stepped back. And I kind of stepped back. And the dog peed on the floor and Kim went for the dog and threw her out.

Hadn’t Mother had some time, after that phone talk, to contemplate the idea of the Jacuzzi shots? Or did she just throw it out of her mind? Did she ask them if the girl was going to bathe naked, if there was someone else but them in the house? Did she ask herself what they were doing there with her daughter naked? Did she give all those issues any thoughts at all after the phone conversation? Apparently she didn’t, or else maybe she would have tried to find out what was actually going on? or if she decided posing in the bath was all right, she wouldn’t be so surprised at seeing one topless photo? The picture she is trying to paint just doesn’t hold water. Which means, there is a different picture behind her words, the one that is getting clearer and clearer. But let’s come back to the events, as described in the testimonies.

The girl keeps drinking her champagne, although nobody asks her to – she is supposed to pose with the glass, she never says he told her to actually drink. Apparently, she really did like this beverage, as Polanski said she had mentioned to him. Moreover, she says, “I was drinking some of his, too.” What, from his glass? Why, may I ask? And again: why didn’t the Jury stop to clarify this point? I have answers to both questions; but my reader will be able to make all the necessary conclusions himself.

In the bathroom, they saw a box with a pill broken into pieces.

And he said, "Is this a Quaalude?" And I went, "Yes."
And he says, "Oh, do you think I will be able to drive if I take it?" And I went, "I don't know," you know. He says, "Well, should I take it?" I went, "I don't know." He goes, "Well, I guess I will," and he took it.
And he says, "Do you want part?" And I went, "No." And he says— oh, at that time I went, "Okay," because — I don’t know.

No wonder the count of “furnishing controlled substance to minor” was subsequently dropped. They found it in the house, she confirmed it was what it was, - Quaalude being a popular party drug at that time, she had already been acquainted with it, as she testified, enough to recognize it on sight - and when asked if she wanted some, said “okay” instead of no.

Polanski’s behavior is far from commendable: being older, he should have stopped her. Well, he didn’t, woe is him. He didn’t stop her when she drank champagne, didn’t stop her when she took that part of pill, and altogether he behaved as a very irresponsible adult; thoroughly regrettable.

Then the girl went to the kitchen to eat something, and then comes the Jacuzzi part.

I was ready to get in and he said, "Take off your underwear.” So I did and then I got in.

Just like that. Does anyone still wonder why the probation officers and the examining psychiatrists later found the circumstance “provocative” and mention “willingness and provocativeness of victim”? She comes with him, behaves like his lover (Helena’s impression, remember?), drinks from his glass, takes Quaalude, and undresses completely, all this without a slightest indication of being forced or coerced.

Here are the pictures they took , and I want you to judge by yourself whether the girl looks distressed, inhibited, scared, or “sedated”. 

From then their accounts of the events part ways. She says he took a few pictures, then got into the Jacuzzi, the deeper end: 

And he said, "Just come down here a second." So I finally went down. And then he went — there was a lot of the Jacuzzi jets. He goes, "Doesn't it feel better down here?" And he was like holding me up because it is almost over my head. And I went, "Yeah, but I better get out." So I got out.

This piece of her tale always breeds unhealthy fantasies of him “raping” her right there in the hot tub; but even if what she said were true, all that happened - according to her own words - was she got out the moment she wanted to. However, the whole scene is highly dubious. He says he never got in, but went to swim in the pool instead, and since nothing criminal happened in the tub, he apparently has no reason to lie. Of course, it has been a time-honored tradition not to take his words into consideration; ok then, how about this: in her Grand Jury testimony she says he was naked, and in a later interview she says, “I think he had his shorts on”.

One would think that a girl wouldn’t be of two minds about such a detail of her male interlocutor’s appearance? Unless, of course, it never really happened.

But it would only get more interesting from now on. After the girl got out of the Jacuzzi, she didn’t hurry to put on her underwear; she says she picked a towel, and went to have a swim in the pool – without the towel, I presume. Once again, the Grand Jury are remarkably reserved with their questions: not a single one about her reasons for walking and swimming about without putting on her underwear first.

After the pool, she finally goes to the bathroom and presumably puts on her panties; then, according to her, she complains of feeling unwell, and he tells her “to go in the other room and lie down”.

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.

At last we’re getting somewhere, aren’t we? Is the prosecution finally coming to the point? Now they will ask her what exactly she was afraid of about him, and hear something they could actually build upon? Did he threaten her in any way? Did he say anything, do anything? Surely they would display some curiosity as to what caused her fear?


The interrogation happily moves on.

Q. And so you went in the other room and sat down on the couch?
A. Yes.

Were they satisfied with the answer? But it doesn’t stand to reason; it is simply not enough for a case: what if the girl was delusional? What if she was lying? Or is it that they just didn’t want to hear that there was nothing to be afraid of? Now in her memoir she herself confesses that she lied to the jury: she says she never felt in danger, that she felt certain she could have made him stop, and that she made the decision to let him do it. And the jury didn’t want, just like we’ve seen before, to ask questions the answers to which would ruin the picture of an innocent victim and expose her as a liar? Was it because they fully realized she was lying and thus it was no use pushing this point further? Then that seems exactly why Polanski finally was allowed to plead the unlawful intercourse, not “rape by use of drugs”.

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.

Again she is bringing up this mysterious “being afraid”, her only trump. The jury already knows the result of her medical examination, so she can’t lie he was using force. Neither did she try to get up, to push him away, to walk out; never tried just not going in that room, not sitting on the couch, anything; all because she was “afraid”. She prudently doesn’t elaborate on the causes of this paralyzing fear – again – and the Jury prudently refrain from going into this. Again.

And finally she comes to the big point. “He went down on me,” she says, and “he placed his mouth on my vagina.” Here the jury wake up for a moment and ask a couple of questions:

Q. Where were you when he did that?
A. Was sitting on the couch.
Q. At any time did he say anything before he put his mouth on your vagina?
A. No.

Wait. If he didn’t say anything, how did she know what she was supposed to do? Cunnilingus requires co-operation: it is not an act of sexual aggression (sexual submission, if anything). Did she open her legs herself, or did he direct her in any way? He didn’t force them open, that’s a medical fact – but how did he get her to assume the necessary position? The Jury prefer not to ask.

As if anticipating the next logical question (which, however, will never come), Samantha once again reminds the Jury that she was afraid: in case they forgot and would wonder why she hadn’t resisted in any way, ever; why she hadn’t just gotten up and walked out. Indeed: what causes did he give her to believe that she wouldn’t be able to do so? That he would restrain her? Her being afraid is not a reason unless any cause for the fear is given. But it never is, and it is never, not a single time inquired about by the Jury.

And still, still the Jury make a feeble attempt of a different approach to finding out anything that would make any sense.

Q. And what did he say, if anything?
A. He wasn’t saying anything that I can remember.

She is adamant about it, and I suspect here’s why. If she had unwisely quoted what he actually said, it might have sound like part of an ordinary dialog between two people making casual love, and thus undermine the picture of her innocence once again; if, on the other hand, she had tried to invent something, she would have failed horribly because their speech patterns are so very different, and whenever she pretends to quote him, she doesn’t sound like him at all. Whenever possible, she insists on not remembering, and it is always the moments when what “he said” could actually shed some light on what was happening. Otherwise, the picture is obscure, and the Jury doesn’t make any attempts to clarify anything.

Q. What happened after that?
A. He started to have intercourse with me.
Q. What do you mean by intercourse?
A. He placed his penis in my vagina.

And… what did she do? How exactly did she assume the necessary position this time, and why, for God’s sake? No, the Jury don’t want to know.

She hurries to add, “I wasn’t fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go.”

Wait. Right before this, she tried to imply that she was too drunk to resist (“I was kind of dizzy, you know, like things were kind of blurry sometimes. I was having trouble with my coordination like walking and stuff.”)

Not only is the above as dubious as the rest of what she says – considering:

- her getting in and out of the tub and the pool or going about dressing/undressing without any trouble;
- neither Angelica Huston (who would appear very soon) nor mother saying a word about her looking intoxicated or having trouble with her coordinaiton;
– mother testifying that they had quite a lengthy exchange of opinions about the topless photographs, during which Samantha was reasoning without any sign of having been “drugged” so shortly before this;
- the amount she consumed (with food, don’t forget) not being sufficient to produce such a reaction: those who took Quaaludes say they make one “relaxed and chilled”, not “dizzy”, hence its popularity as a party drug;
- the above being corroborated by the fact that the police didn’t see fit to test her for presence of alcohol or drug in her system, -

but also it is important to note that Samantha’s statements are again in direct contradiction with each other.

You are either too intoxicated to resist, and you just let it happen, or you calculate that if you get up and walk out, your “rapist” won’t drive you home and you will have to catch a taxi (I wonder if any genuine victim has ever put forward such an excuse for not trying to escape a rape). Her desire to heap as many accusations as possible is obvious, but she falls between two stools.

And again: “I think he was – he was saying something, but I wasn’t listening to him and I can’t remember”. Lest the Jury, God forbid, should try to find out what was really happening. She shouldn’t have worried: they never did.

They ask, however, how her panties had been taken off (since she had allegedly put them on in the bathroom, and has never touched upon their further destiny). Answer:

After he kissed me he got ahold of them and he pulled them off.

Remember, she was sitting at that time? How exactly did he do that – by force? Seems like she would have had to move her pelvis? Silence from the Jury.

And now the top. “He put his penis in my butt.” Wow. Without any lubrication. Without even spitting on her anus. Dry anal intercourse. Must have hurt like hell? No, unless it is a detail she doesn’t find worth mentioning, or the Jury worth asking about. Anyway, since she would later say, “he wasn’t hurting me in any way”, the penetration must have been miraculously painless.

But wait. Anal intercourse leaves traces. Even if done very carefully, with the recipient perfectly willing, it can’t fail to leave some trauma on dry friction. There would have been some, however minor, lacerations or bruising – but her medical report flatly says there were none at all. Physically, it may be barely possible by some miracle (and, of course, at no resistance from the “victim”, except cooperation – although she unwisely chooses this very moment to state that she resisted “a little bit”, which makes it impossible to emerge so miraculously unscathed from dry sodomy), but not probable. Heaped on top of everything we’ve already heard, this blatant improbability, this direct contradiction with the results of medical examination, finally binds everything together as a perfect conglomerate of lies.

The Jury keeps mum, as usual. No, they never try to find out any details, as if they don’t want her to incriminate herself by more perjury, or come to the point where they would have to denounce her as a liar.

The next part, when Angelica Huston allegedly appeared behind the door, talked with Polanski and walked away, is not corroborated by either Polanski (ok, I know, nobody listens to him) or by Angelica herself, so we wouldn’t have to take it into consideration if not for another curious detail. Some time earlier Samantha said she was afraid because there was no one else in the house. Well, now there was someone; someone female at that. I’ve read many comments by both genuine victims of rape and people who work with them: many insist that no genuine victim of a real rape would miss such an opportunity to call for help (I will have to do some more research on this, though). I am not asking why Samantha did not do that – this seems to me just another of an already lengthy set of questions that have no other answer except “because none of this was happening”; but the Jury? They ask her, some time later, why she didn’t say anything to the woman, get the old I-was-afraid “even though there was someone else there”, aggravated with the ridiculous “I didn’t know what to say” (as if “Help!!!!!!” didn’t seem a valid option), and keep on sitting there gagging their mouths with handkerchiefs, lest an uneasy question should escape. They let her fantasize further, of an elaborate course of events featuring the panties on and off again, and another dry sodomy session, all that leaving no traces whatsoever, all that with a grown-up woman right there in another room.

Unfortunately, one uneasy question escapes: she is asked if she believes that he climaxed in her anus. Her answer is an unqualified “yes”, while we remember that both her vaginal and anal slides proved negative for semen; she will also testify to not taking any enema, douche, or even shower after the “events”. The Jury carefully inquires if she knows what climax is, what semen is, and she reassures them: yes, she does know all this. You bet.

Angelica Huston says she “returned home to the Nicholson residence, realized that someone else was in the home, calling Miss Kalliniotes who verified that the defendant and the victim were in the home.” She never confirms the episode so vividly (at the expense of plausibility) described by Samantha. “Regarding the appearance of the victim Miss Huston stated, “She didn’t appear to be distressed. <…> She appeared to be one of those kind of little chicks between – could be between any age up to 25… You know, she did not look like a 13-year-old little scared thing.” Quite.

Then Polanski took Samantha home, and the rest of the events will be analyzed in later chapters. Now let me draw your attention to one more fact.

We already know that there was no evidence not only of a rape, but of any intercourse. But wait, there was some: the panties.  

Tumas, peace officer who took Samantha to the Parkwood Community Hospital, testifies that “bronze or copper colored panties” were given to him by Samantha at her residence “the evening of March 10th prior to going to Parkwood Hospital”. He says she had them in her bedroom, and he received them from her “in the hallway next to the front door prior to going to Parkwood Hospital”.

I am not sure they were valid evidence, obtained so many hours after the events, and at a different place; but so be it.

Since there was a stain in the crotch of the panties, they were tested.

Lee Edward Mann, a criminalist assigned to the Scientific Investigation Division of the LAPD, testifies:
I determined that the test, the acid phosphatase test was positive indicating the presence of semen on the panties.
However, I could not confirm the presence of semen by obtaining spermatozoa from the garment stain.

Still, it is semen all right: at least, he says he is about 90% sure it is. But then the real bomb goes off, and nobody gives a damn:

Q. Is it possible to find semen without spermatozoa?
A. Yes.
Q. Under what circumstances does that occur?
A. Well, the semen could be from a source where the individual involved had some pathological reason for not producing sperm or a small number of sperm, or he could have a vasectomy in which you would not find any sperm.

Wow. Who could this individual be? The Jury ask Dr.Larson, to make sure. He replies:

A. One who has had a vasectomy will show no spermatozoa on slides, but will in fact produce semen.
Q. Are there any other situations where semen will be produced without spermatozoa?
A. Commonly, no.
Q. What about sterility?
A. Sterility – again, if a vasectomy is rendered, one is sterile. If one is sterile, this simply means that they are unable – they are unable to have children, not that they cannot have sexual relations and not that they cannot produce ejaculate. They do not form sufficient spermatozoa.

Great. Wonderful. Someone who left his stain on Samantha’s panties was unable to have children. Whoever that was, Samantha’s boyfriend or anyone else, it was not Polanski.

Sure they would have a comparative test now? OK, there’s no DNA testing at that time, but something? Blood type? Anything? A specimen of his sperm?

No. No tests. No comparison. Can you give me any good reason why?  Except this, of course: any test would ruin the case completely. Mother and daughter would have had to be exposed as liars who tried to deceive the authorities by fabricating evidence.

But the roles had already been assigned by that time: she the victim, he the rapist. So, the panties with God-know-whose sperm were swept under the carpet. A disgusting mockery, not the last in the merry-go-round of misguided justice this case is a perfect example of.

I think this alone could be enough to make those who are able to think clearly see who is the real victim here. Now remember that the girl and her mother refused to testify at a trial, refused to be cross-examined, refused psychiatric counseling. Refused, in a word, any close scrutiny.

Some think (I am inclined to think the same) it was all a classic set-up.

Indeed, everything fits together if we assume this hypothesis. The behavior of mother that we found strange would be strange no longer. The same with Samantha’s performing all constituents of a flirt (changing in front of him; posing topless; drinking; drinking form his glass; posing naked; walking and swimming naked) and her unwillingness to resist in any way. The same with the piling up of accusations, uncorroborated or flatly refuted by expert findings, laws of nature, and common logic (oral sex! Anal sex! Double sodomy! the more horrible the better): something was supposed to stick. The same with that desperate producing of the panties when it was obvious that there’s no other evidence, outside or inside her. The same with their rejection of the trial and the counseling. The same with both mother’s and daughter’s repeated pleas that Polanski wouldn’t be sentenced to prison time: indeed, if they planned to file a civil lawsuit, they needed him free and making money. Otherwise, what mother would ask for no prison time for the rapist if her daughter had been actually raped? There was a lawsuit later on, by the way, and it seals my inclination to believe in the setup version.

But whether or not it was a setup, one thing is clear as day: it was no rape.  

And everybody seemed to realize it at that time.

We’ve already seen the weird behavior of the jury; it stops seeming weird if we assume that they did realize she was lying.

Those who still believe him being a “convict rapist” should have a look at the first page of the probation report, which clearly says, Convicted of the crime(s) of: Unlawful sexual intercourse. Not rape. Not child abuse or molestation or whatever else people rave about now.

He is convicted exactly of what he plead. They let him plead the unlawful intercourse, although the common practice is to accept only the plea on the most serious count: no other counts were valid. (If he had plead not guilty on all counts and insisted on trial, nobody would have proved there was any intercourse – but that’s a story for another chapter).

Probation report: “… the present offense was neither an aggressive nor forceful sexual act. There was some indication that circumstances were provocative, that there was some permissiveness by the mother, that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing; as one doctor has additionally suggested there was the lack of coercion by the defendant.”

Samantha states exactly the same nowadays. We’ve already heard her saying, “he wasn’t mean or forceful or anything”; now look at these:

 “Dear Honorable Judge Fidler:
I am writing you this letter as the victim of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” for which Roman Polanski was convicted in 1977 (Geimer’s petition of 1997). Voila. Not a “victim of rape”.

I do not believe that it was Mr.Polanski’s intention to frighten me or cause me harm.” This is the answer to that question the Jury neglected to ask. No, there was nothing to be afraid of – except having to answer for her own involvement in “unlawful intercourse”.

Mr.Gilbert Garcetti
District Attorney
“Dear Mr.Garcetti:
My name is Samantha Geimer. When I was 13 years old, I was the victim of unlawful intercourse by Roman Polanski for which he was indicted and pled guilty. (…)
At the time of his arrest, my family and I consented and encouraged the then District Attorney, John Van de Kamp, to enter into a plea bargain with Mr. Polanski upon three conditions. That Mr. Polanski admit the conduct, show contrition, and seek assistance in changing his life. I believe that Mr. Polanski has done each of these. He has admitted the facts underlying the crime for which he has pled guilty. He has publicly expressed contrition, and Mr. Polanski has had a significant life change which merits consideration in connection with his attempted return to the United States

He has admitted the facts. Look at this again. And now remember that the only thing he has ever admitted was exactly what he plead: unlawful intercourse. He always insisted it was consensual, and “admitted the facts” only with this qualification. Samantha has for a long time been doing exactly the same: hinting, more and more directly, that that’s what it was: consensual sex (“It was just sex”. “He had sex with me”). Unfortunately, I don’t think she will ever make up her mind to come clear and say it explicitly – after all, it would make her a criminal, since according to the US laws she couldn’t legally consent; worse, it would also expose her as a perjurer.

Every time the case comes close to be tried at court, she petitions, with renewed vigor, for it to be dropped and forgotten. No big surprise here: now she couldn’t as easily refuse to be crossed-examined, her account could finally be tried, and so would be the evidence – both the absence thereof and the corrupted, like those miserable panties.


Julie said...

I can't help but agree with your conclusion. The intercourse was clearly consensual, everything points at this.


Anonymous said...

This website is ridiculously biased and contradicts much of what I have read about the case. Provide sources for your information and maybe it can be taken seriously.

Jean said...

Thank you Anonymous, what you wrote is a perfect confirmation of what I already know: people condemn Polanski only because they don’t know the facts. Now that I’ve displayed them to you, the only way for you to protect the picture you’ve been living with is to doubt the authenticity of my sources. Of course I contradict what you’ve read on the case: this is the whole point. None of media articles are based on documents, they only repeat the same lies one after another, embellishing and exaggerating as they please. I analyzed their reasons for doing so in Chapter 8 (Delusions vs. Sanity).

I listed some of my sources in the Acknowledgments part. They are:

1. The pdf transcript of the Grand Jury testimonies. It is sometimes available online, and then it disappears, exactly for this reason: these testimonies when taken as a whole disrupt the picture people are supposed to have. Luckily, I saved the files. If you are patient AND lucky, you can find them online yourself (not by google search. They are never in searchable format. For the same obvious reason: more obstacles for those endeavoring to find out the truth). Or if you insist, I’ll post them here (it’s a shit ton of pdfs).
2. The probation report – ditto.
3. Geimer’s petitions – ditto.
4. The documentary by Zenovich, where the people involved say everything themselves, in their own voices coming from their own mouths. I only quote what they actually say, without altering anything (extremely easy to check).
5. Geimer’s interviews - can be easily found online, video, searchable transcripts, whatever.
6. Ditto Brennerman’s Eats, Shoots and Leaves (see also the link in the Acknowledgments).
7. In all other cases I always provide a link to the particular source I quote, unless I overlooked something. I will re-check.

As far as my being biased is concerned – I’ve made my research and came to the conclusions I state. Make your own research if you can – or remain a pawn of the media and politicians that have been making fools of the public for 34 years by now.

Anonymous said...

Jean, if you have a shit-ton of documents, you should take the time to post them on your site so that we, the readers, can look at them. Especially if they are hard to come by elsewhere. I'd like copies of them for my own person files.


Jean said...

You know, it's the same story again, come to think of it - when people read fantasies about "brutal rape", they NEVER ask for any documents. Nor any quotes from actual documents. Nor anything to substantiate the accusations. They just swallow it whole, and the filthier the lies, the readier people are to believe them. That's how all propaganda always worked, in all societies, at all times.

OK, I'll start attaching my files now, although the job will take some time to complete.

Leigh said...

If I was a young girl alone in a room with an adult man who had just broken by the law by attempting intercourse with me and carrying on when I told him 'no' showing that he doesn't respect my feelings I would likely be afraid of him. I might wonder what he would do if I tried to run off or fought him and I might well decide just to lie there rather than risk making him angry. You can't imagine why she would be afraid? I can.

Your arguments about why she didn't run away sound sadly like the kind of victim blaming victim advocates fight against. See this article on Myths about Sexual Assault:

Myth: It is impossible to sexually assault someone against their will. If they did not want to be sexually assaulted they could have fought or run away.
Fact: Any sexual act forced upon another person is considered rape. It does not matter if the person fought back or not. Submitting without a struggle does not mean the victim consented to the sexual assault. The victim is the best judge of whether or not it is safe to resist. The victim is NEVER to blame for the assault.

If I was the mother of a crime victim I might well - knowing how traumatizing courts can be for adults never mind adolescents - decide that if she doesn't want to take it to court I won't try to force her.

Also you don't have to have your legs spread for someone to touch your vagina.

Jean said...

I started posting a reply, but it proved too long for .blogspot to fit into comment format, so I made a new post, here:

Christian said...

"I’ve read many comments by both genuine victims of rape and people who work with them: they insist that no genuine victim of a real rape would miss such an opportunity to call for help"

As a rape counsellor I can't tell how depressing it is to read comments like that. Everybody reacts differently to traumatic situations including rape. I have counselled many survivors of rape and sexual assault who have not called for help.

Anonymous said...

You claim to be unbiased but as soon as Samantha contradicts herself about when Polanski took his clothes off you assume she is lying without even considering the possibility she might be mistaken.

Jean said...

To Anonymous:

>>You claim to be unbiased but as soon as Samantha contradicts herself about when Polanski took his clothes off you assume she is lying without even considering the possibility she might be mistaken. <<
Oh yes, I did consider it, but the consideration didn’t seem sound.
If one is not sure about a thing, one shouldn’t unreservedly affirm it. Especially not while under oath. Especially not when this detail can’t fail to really impress the jury.

To Christian:

>>"I’ve read many comments by both genuine victims of rape and people who work with them: they insist that no genuine victim of a real rape would miss such an opportunity to call for help" As a rape counsellor I can't tell how depressing it is to read comments like that. Everybody reacts differently to traumatic situations including rape. I have counselled many survivors of rape and sexual assault who have not called for help.<<
Of all the 10 comments I got last Wednesday, this is one of only the two (the second being Ali’s at Chapter 4) that make actual sense. Maybe you will notice, though, that I only relied on my personal researching experience. Since your experience (that of a professional, as you say) is different, I will edit that statement now, replacing “they insist” by “many insist” and emphasizing it that this is only the opinions I came across, not a proven fact; I will alter that part if further research gives me ground for this. So far what I gathered has been exactly as I stated, but I will count your voice in.

For a more important point, see my reply to your other comment (to Chapter 6).

Anonymous said...

A person can be mistaken but be sure their mistake is correct so that doesn't prove she's lying.

Jean said...

Dear Anon who tried to comment on this chapter (Sept 29): I have already warned that no obscenities addressed to Mr.Polanski will be published. If you only badmouthed me, I would publish your comment - here is an excerpt to prove it:

>> You're just so full of shit. You post hundreds of words, but they are so empty. I suspect that you are a rapist yourself. Why did you write all this bullshit?

Answering your question, I write "all this bullshit" because it comes from a verbal analysis of the existing documents.

Anonymous said...

Consensual or not, it's illegal. Are you stupid?

Jean said...

Thank you for opening my eyes, anon. Yes, in my stupidity I used to see difference between consensual intercourse and forcible rape. Now that you've so eloquently convinced me that there is none, I'll hurry to join the enlightened majority that hysterically yells "rape of the century".

Anonymous said...

Polanski, your only guilty of being foolish. She is guilty of trying to become rich and famous. She accomplish her mission, Polanski suffered. The famous wealthy must always be so careful are watchful all the time. SAD!!!

Anonymous said...

when will you create a blog defending ariel castro

Jean said...

As soon as I see the documents conclusively proving that he is innocent, anon.

Anonymous said...

Polanski may indeed have been set up by this mother daughter team for monetary gain and more. However, the girl was 13 years old and hence any sexual tryst between them would have made him guilty of statutory rape.

Jean said...

Why of course, that's exactly what he was guilty of! Unlawful sexual intercourse, something he should have gotten probation for (like everyone else convicted of the same did, according to both Dalton and Silver), and it would have been over with 37 years ago. By now he's already done a lot more than the time agreed upon with the judge.

Nerthus said...

All of this is irrelevant. She was 13. She was a child by law. Just because a child wants to have sex, doesn't make it legal. The law understands children of that age are not mature enough to decide responsibly how to have sex. Polanski took advantage of her immaturity, whether she wanted it or not, or put herself in such a position is irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

I'm curious about her relationship at 13 or even 12 if they dated for a while, with a 17 year old. Odd to me that a mother would allow a 13yo to date a 17yo. I guess it's not statutory rape because the boyfriend is under 18?

Also the first thing I thought of when read the transcript was how did she have no reaction to the anal sex? That part alone doesn't add up. I've read the court transcript but I haven't read the survivors Samantha's book or Polanski's book.