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: http://iambecauseweare.wordpress.com/myths-about-sexual-assault-rape-myths/ 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.
Where do I begin? It is all as if you didn’t actually read what I wrote, only snatched a piece here and there. Ok, let’s start with the particulars, and then move on to the important points.
If I was a young girl alone in a room with an adult man
If you were a young girl… would you have had sexual partners by the tender age of 13, would you have willingly drunk wine and taken drugs, would your mother have let you do all that, would you have posed topless and naked, would you have drunk from that adult man’s glass, would you have behaved the way a disinterested person would say “they acted as if they were lovers”; would you have made such suggestive faces at him while sitting naked in a tub, would you have neglected to put on your underwear once out of the bath and swum in a pool totally naked instead? If the answer to any or all of the above is negative, please do not identify with her. It is faulty logic, all those “if it was me” or “if it was your daughter”. We are not her. We all come from different backgrounds and have different psychology.
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.
Look, is your last name Cooley? You do not have to recur to lies, your career doesn’t depend on them. The course of events was exactly the opposite. She brings up the “being afraid” thing long before there was any mention of “attempting intercourse”, right after happily laughing and grimacing at him, right after swimming naked in the pool.
Also, I wouldn’t bring up the “who had just broken the law” part as an additional cause of her “fear”: in this particular context it is preposterous, Samantha’s other partners having broken the same law without any objection from her part.
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.
Partly correct, partly arguable (the definition of “forced” is so vague here that it invites all kinds of false rape accusations, on a whim, out of spite, for lucrative purposes etc), and, more important, totally irrelevant. You seem to miss my point which is there was no assault in this case.
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.
I can imagine a lot of things. Imagination is not anything that should be relied upon, however, when we deal with such a serious thing as a rape accusation. I repeat: she never gave any reason for her being afraid, and the Jury never made any attempt at clarifying this point. Given the whole course of preceding events, I do not buy this sudden fear. Don’t you realize that with the total absence of any evidence, the Jury would have grabbed at this straw, had it appeared in any way sound, because it would have been the only thing the prosecution could have build a sound rape accusation on? But they did not. Which only means they didn’t believe her, just like I don’t, and didn’t want to aggravate the things for her.
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.
Yes, you might. You might also decide that if she doesn’t want therapy (why why why?) you won’t force her, either, ditto if she doesn’t want any questions asked by the defense. Previously, you might have found it advisable to be as permissive as a mother can be. You might also have decided it was a good thing to let her – precocious and sexually active – go with a man whose well-known girlfriend was barely 16 and looked no older than your daughter, without asking a single question, without insisting on accompanying them. You might have kept silence while informed of the intended Jacuzzi shots. You might have forged the evidence (I don’t think it was Samantha’s own idea). Do not get me started on mother.
Also you don't have to have your legs spread for someone to touch your vagina.
Touch? She says he performed cunnilingus on her. I will be eternally grateful if you explain to me how it is possible if a girl is sitting on a couch with her panties on and her legs together. There seem to be some missing links here.
But let’s talk about serious things now.
1. When you take one of my arguments out of the context and start disproving it separately from the others, you lose the whole picture. See how it works (I’ll do the counterarguments myself, in brackets, to spare you the effort):
- medical examination showed no marks (you know, it is possible to rape without using force, only by intimidating)
- the housekeeper said “they acted as if they were lovers” (maybe she was Polanski’s friend, or he intimidated her, too)
- she drank champagne and took Quaalude of her own accord (she only displayed natural childish curiosity)
- her mother’s consistently behaved the way that ensured that she is alone undisturbed with no questions asked with a man she barely knew, famous for his promiscuity and love of young women (a pure soul, she unconditionally trusted him)
- Samantha showed no inhibitions when asked to undress completely (she was too innocent to understand)
- she looks totally happy and very coquettish in the Jacuzzi photos (the child enjoyed bathing)
- she didn’t hurry to put on anything after she got out (the tub had been hot, she needed to cool down)
- she never states any cause of her sudden paralyzing fear (must have been something too atrocious to remember)
- the Jury didn’t ask her any crucial questions (not to traumatize her)
- Angelica Huston didn’t find her scared or distressed (another Polanski’s friend, to be sure)
- all Samantha’s later accounts differ from both her Grand Jury testimony and one another in all points (the trauma was so severe it caused permanent damage to her brain, creating conflicting false memories)
- the probation report states she was willing (how could they! What a callous thing to say! refuse to comment)
- it also notes the lack of coercion (oh, I know! they were bribed by Polanski)
- all the counts except “unlawful sexual intercourse” were dropped (EVERYONE was bribed by Polanski)
- she later says “It was just sex” (she only means it wasn’t an excavation or a visit to the zoo)
- rape doesn’t fit into Polanski’s psychological profile (oh, everybody lies about him)
- he never did anything remotely resembling sexual assault either before or after, and has been an exemplary husband and father for decades (maybe we just don’t know. Maybe he does those things every day, and his wife condones)
- France has never had the slightest inclination to extradite him (they are all perverts and rapists there)
- a number of other countries – including Swiss who had 9 months to look into the matter – rejected direct extradition requests (see? ALL perverts and rapists!!!)
- every time the case comes too close to finally be tried, Geimer petitions for it to be dropped and forgotten (a noble, forgiving soul)
- the Gaileys produced forged evidence (they just gave the officer the wrong panties. One can easily be mistaken, what with one thing and another)
Well, I could go on for ages, but I think my point is clear. One can find excuses for any particular detail. But taken together, their picture would never be consistent – OR probable. You will have to combine the far-fetched and the ridiculous with things that have little to no probability, drag in conjectures, surmises and maybes, and finally come up with a conglomerate which won’t make sense.
While all of the above – and everything else there is to the case – can be explained clearly, consistently, exhaustively and plausibly: the intercourse was consensual, and the whole incident a classic false rape cry. All known facts fit into this picture smoothly, without being forced there.
2. What you tend to overlook is that I don't ever have to prove it wasn’t rape. It is the task of prosecution to prove it was, not the other way.
There was not a single bit of evidence, not ever. There never was a single proof. Telling me now that the absence of evidence doesn’t mean anything is preposterous. People do not have to prove their innocence when accused: it would be the same as demanding that you prove you didn’t murder your grandfather. You know, sometimes criminals don’t leave traces, could I have said, and the absence of your fingerprints or whatever else doesn’t prove anything.
3. But, you will tell me, disregarding (as your side always does) everything I wrote, - but SHE SAYS SO HERSELF!
Great.
The absence of evidence doesn’t matter.
The attempt to forge evidence doesn’t matter.
The findings of the probation department whose independent research brought them to the conclusion that she was willing and there was no coercion, don’t matter.
The fact that all those preposterous counts were dropped and the unlawful sexual intercourse plea was accepted, while the common practice was to accept only the plea on the most serious count, doesn’t matter.
The consistent behavior of all European authorities doesn’t matter.
All that matters is that SHE SAID SO HERSELF. As if you never heard of false rape cries and setups. Or maybe you think that Ms.Geimer’s words are beyond any doubt by definition, God’s Truth that can outweigh everything?
Please go then and read Chapter 5. I prove there that she is a natural born liar, and comparing her accounts exposes her as such; thus none of what “she said” is to be believed by anyone who respect themselves. That is why I hold no sympathy for her; that is why I despise her, in spite of all her efforts to bury the case – her reasons for this are far too obvious, and far from being admirable.
4. Everyone who repeats this “rape” bullshit does so illegally.
I don’t even have to repeat that there was not a single bit of evidence except the forged. I don’t have to quote the findings of the probation department. I don’t have to analyze the testimonies. All I have to do is to remind you that he pleaded unlawful sexual intercourse, and his plea was accepted, by professionals who knew all the details of the case.
They saw, as clear as I see it, an instance of consensual sex with a person (“adult female”) who happened to be a minor (“isolated instance of transient poor judgment”), they promised a probation sentence, and that should have ended the case then and there. As to why it didn’t, read Chapter 4.
Anyone can be accused of anything – and many have been. There is worlds of difference between “accused” and “convicted”, and failing to see it is worse than unethical: it is stupid. Nobody has any right to indefinitely chew on an allegation taken from the dropped counts. It is indecent and illegal.
8 comments:
Lots of stupid kids do drugs, drink and have sex. It doesn't mean they can't be the victim of a crime - neither does being uninhibited - and it doesn't mean that wouldn't be afraid if an adult made a pass at them and ignored them when they told them to stop. We do indeed have our own psychologies which is why we can't claim to know how Samantha would have felt. Whether she had reason to be afraid of him before what happened doesn't matter because he had not broken the law then. I can see why she would have been afraid if she told him no and he ignored her and she might have gone along with it out of fear but that does not equal consent.
I don't claim to know that he raped her. I don't think it was proven he raped her but I don't think you have proven she is a liar either.
Polanski was charged with Unlawful Sexual Intercourse as part of a plea bargain.
The fact she didn't seem scared doesn't prove anything. There was a woman called Debbie Morris who was kidnapped and raped and wrote the book about it called Forgiving the Dead Man Walking. Many people saw her during her kidnap and not one person thought she looked scared and they assumed she was the kidnappers girlfriend. There is no one way to respond to sexual assault and you can't tell how someone is feeling on the inside.
When Kate Moss was 14 she was sent off alone with fashion photographers one of whom turned out to be sex offender. Katie Price was molested by a photographer while unaccompanied at a modeling shoot when she was young. Do you assume their parents set it up to entrap the photographers as well.
Also Samantha said she had sex with her teenage boyfriend once or twice. Do you have any proof she had more experience than that?
If you touch someones vagina with your tongue you are performing cunnilingus therefore if she had her legs together he could still perform oral on her as he could touch parts of her vagina.
To Elena: while she is sitting on a couch with her panties on? Some actions would have had to be undertaken.
To Leigh:
Sorry Leigh… what was it all about? How is all of this relevant to our conversation, or to anything else? I won’t even point out the contradictions in your statements (though now, just like Geimer, you’ve started to contradict yourself, not only the documented facts), since at the moment I totally fail to see the point you are trying to make.
Once again I have to repeat that there are only two types of fact in this case: the ones that work for the defense conclusively, and the ones that do so inconclusively. There are no known facts or evidence that would work for the prosecution.
I think this is one of the most important information for me. And i am glad reading your article. But should remark on few general things, The website style is perfect, the articles is really nice
Это мне напомнило одну фразу из известного фильма:
My point is that you cannot tell how frightened someone is by looking at them, plenty of young models are sent on jobs alone it doesn't prove their parents are trying to set anything up and its easy to see why a 13 year old - virgin or not - would be afraid being alone with a man in his 40's who is trying to have sex with her.
To Leigh:
1) It totally stands to reason that it is impossible to tell how frightened someone is only by looking at them. That's why the fact of how she looked isn't the ONLY thing contended to be out of keeping with the fright card, but merely one of many different pieces that corroborate and, taken together, make it highly implausible (one hesitates to say outright impossible) that she would have felt any fear whatsoever in given circumstances.
2) They were not alone. There was another woman in the house, of whom Samantha was well aware. (Another piece that undermines the fear assertion).
3) Samantha herself has said many years later that she knew she could have stopped the intercourse at any time if she had wanted, but that she let it go. That's as close as it can get from her tongue to an admission that there indeed was no fear involved.
Post a Comment