Samantha Geimer: Fool Me Twice

Note: Before you read the article below, please get acquainted with the documented facts of the case in the main part of this blog.

Ms.Geimer is writing a book. A “tell-all memoir” called The Girl: Emerging from the Shadow of Roman Polanski. The woman who always insisted that her main desire was to be left alone and allowed to live her own life (which never prevented her, though, from appearing on television or giving interviews), finally forgot what she had said whenever she’d been asked if she intended to make a buck this way, and got on with it. But we’ve already seen how faulty her memory is whenever it suits her.

Moreover. In Geimer’s 2010 Larry King interview, Silver, her lawyer, who was there, said that Polanski’s own memoir, Roman by Polanski was, according to Geimer, “an attempt to exploit the events for money.”

Brilliant. So, a memoir of a man whose life is an action-packed novel in itself, who’s contributed a lot to the world’s culture, and whose every word, thus, would have been interesting to the reading public even if Samantha had never been born – is “an attempt to exploit the events”. As if he didn’t have other events in his life. “For money,” too – this is, evidently, how actively working film directors make their living. While her own book, of course, is nothing like that. Not an attempt to exploit the events. Not for money, either.

Delia Lloyd, in Washington Post, deplores this fact: “...I can’t help wishing that she wouldn’t tell her story… I fear that there is no way that this story will end well for her. Even if she intends for her book to clear her name… Geimer herself – not to mention her mother – will be scrutinized six ways to Sunday as we proudly extol her braveness and voice even while pouring over the prurient details of exactly what happened that day 35 years ago...”

One should really feel sorry for poor Samantha. Indeed: you make a false rape accusation 35 years ago, and in spite of all lies your supporters have been spreading, there still will be some people who, alas, can read and think. If she had only kept her mouth shut all this time, or at least if she didn’t try her best to stay in the limelight, she would make it much easier for her defenders to create and maintain the image of a holy, innocent "victim". Alas, whenever she opens her mouth (amazingly often), she puts her foot in it, as we’ve seen here.

But dishonest journalists are not abashed. Now, in addition to all the old lies they’ve been poisoning the public with for decades, they’ve managed to invent some new ones. Let’s have a look.

In all the articles that have appeared since Geimer voiced her historical decision to capitalize on the event once again, the old lies resurrect, like zombies in a horror movie, as if nobody has ever had any access to the documents of the case.

Of course, everyone screams “drugged and raped”. Goes without saying. Many, like jezebel.com, make it the title of their articles: Former Teenager Who Was Raped By Roman Polanski Is Writing a Memoir, that’s how Katie J.M. Baker has chosen to call her article, in which she upbraids the Associated Press:
“The 13-year-old who Roman Polanski raped — hey, people/Associated Press, let's remember he was not "convicted of having sex with" her…” (Associated Press, you see, had the temerity to start their article as follows: “The former teen whom Roman Polanski was convicted of having sex with…”)

Yes, Baker, “having sex” is the only thing he was charged with after the other charges were disproved and dropped as unsubstantiated fantasies. But the truth won’t do for such as Baker, and she goes on:

“…but convicted of forcing a young teenager to have oral, anal, and vaginal sex with him…”

I wonder if Baker ever heard that slander is a crime. As we know from the documents, “forcing” was never ever present even among the initial charges. The conclusion of the investigation clearly states consent. “Anal sex” charge was refuted by the medical examination, “oral sex” amounts to Gailey’s vague statement that “he put his mouth on my vagina” (while she was sitting on the couch with her panties on), of which the Grand Jury didn’t even bother to clarify the details. No shame, eh, Baker? Care to disclose your sources? Any documents where he was “convicted” of what you shamelessly state he was?

Baker doesn’t have to be angry with Associated Press, though. A lot of media (for example Green Bay Press Gazette) reprint their article Samantha Geimer, Roman Polanski’s Sex Victim, Writing a Memoir, written by Hillel Italie (AP National Writer), and only Yahoo News had enough decency to retain only the parts of the article that make sense (always assuming they haven't edited it since I last read it), while others reprint it whole, with all the fact twisting.

“Polanski was accused of plying Geimer with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a 1977 modeling shoot at Jack Nicholson's house and raping her.”

Saying this without mentioning that those charges were dropped is as dishonest -  although subtler - as doing what we’ve just seen Baker do.

“He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.”

Same as the above: “initially indicted” and “convicted” are quite different things… but wait, guys! There’s something really precious here. 

Lately – I first noticed it a couple years ago – the media added another foul trick to their collection. All of a sudden, everyone started listing “child molesting” among the initial counts.

There never was any “child molesting” count. Ever. “Rape by use of drugs” was, just as “sodomy”, basing on the initial complaint (that is, on the bare words of the accuser); it’s only later, after the investigation, that they had to be dropped. But “child molesting” didn’t even occur to anyone: Ms.Gailey did not, in anyone’s eyes, qualify as a “child”. People were not blind: perfectly mature and sexually experienced, that’s how they saw her, “adult female” being the definition given in her medical examination report. 

Including a count that never existed is disgusting and very dangerous. It’s being done for the same reason as invariably attaching the infamous black-and-white photo (the one with the books), the photo that was made long before the events, by a professional photographer who had nothing to do with the case or with Polanski. They are trying to implant in the minds of the reading public a totally different - from the reality - image of Gailey – namely, that of a “child victim”.

And to prop it up, they have invented a new, subtler trick. I’ve already expressed my doubts concerning the independence of American/British press, and now my worst suspicions are confirmed. All of a sudden, as if by a miracle, in all recent articles, Geimer became two (or three) years younger than she actually is.

Samantha Geimer, who was 13 at the time and is now 47 (Guardian)
Samantha Geimer, now 47 (AP)
Geimer, now 47 (Washington Post)
...is now 47 (jezebel.com)

etc. Now, by what stretch of imagination can she be 47? If what the Gaileys said to the Grand Jury was true – although the only thing to confirm it was a copy of the birth certificate (they never produced the original) – then she was born on March 30, 1963, which makes her 49. If, on the other hand, the data provided by ancestry.co.uk is correct, and her birthday is Sept 1, 1962 (which is corroborated by her outstanding maturity and by the fact that she was a student of the 9^th grade at the time in question), she is 50.

Why these lies, apparently useless?

As we’ve already seen, there’s no such thing as harmless lies in our case. When a reader sees the figure, s/he makes a mental calculation, and comes up with Samantha’s age on the day of “rape” as 12 or even 11 – as opposed to two weeks shy of 14 (or, if we believe ancestry.co.uk, 14 and a half). Many of the articles don’t specify how old she was in ’77, only say she was a “minor”, thus letting the readers fantasize to their heart’s content. Strengthened by the lie about the “child molesting” count and the photo made when she was so much younger, it becomes really impressive.

Besides this innovation, they have come up with another elegant hocus-pocus.
Delia Lloyd, of Washington Post, - the very one whose lamentations we started our analysis with – writes at the beginning of her article:  “This time, however, our cultural re-connection with Monsieur Polanski comes in the form of news that the then-13-year-old girl whom he drugged and raped in Jack Nicholson’s home all those years ago is publishing a memoir to tell her side of the story.” 

The line that I underlined provides a link. Apparently, one doesn’t accuse someone of such horrible crimes without proofs. The link must give us a valid source.

Well, what could this valid source be? We know that it can’t be a document – we’ve seen them all, and we know that there never was any “drugging” or “raping”. OK, out of curiosity, let’s follow the link… Et voilà! 
What we see is Eleanor Clift’s article, Roman Polanski: A Free Man, but How's His Conscience? Another, older, article, as full of falsehoods as the Lloyd’s one! 

“Polanski was initially indicted on six felony counts, including child molesting and drug-induced rape,” Clift says. See “child molesting” again? And, of course, the conclusion of the article goes:   

“Film director Roman Polanski finally beat the rap, after years of legal wrangling, for drugging a 13-year-old girl then raping her during a modeling shoot in 1977.”
 
Not a single mention of the result of the investigation, of the medical examination, of the expert’s testimony – nothing! As if the initial charges made any sense, which they did not, - not when confronted with the facts and the testimonies.

Perfect. One liar backs up another liar. One set of lies is confirmed by another. But they must have calculated the effect: the reader is led to believe that Lloyd is quoting a reliable source, so her own dirty slander (“drugged and raped”) acquire verisimilitude.

Fool you once, dear reader, shame on the media. Fool you twice, shame on you.

They are fooling you, shamelessly, brazenly. Every word they say can be refuted, starting with Geimer’s age and finishing with “drugged and raped”. If you allow them to – shame on you: they are only doing their dirty, but well-paid job. Lloyd is playing on your best feelings (“…she was not party to a consensual affair with an older man, but the victim of child rape”), knowing that “child rape” phrase will cause immediate gut reaction, although “consensual affair with an older man” is the only thing that we can see in the documents. But people do not go and verify the lies they are told. Not after they’ve been shocked by “child rape”. Not after that horror was “confirmed by a source” – that is, by another set of the same lies.
Fooling you – constantly, relentlessly, in every word – is the only thing they’ve been doing all those years.

Here’s another lie they are trying to make you believe:

Even if she intends for her book to clear her name, once and for all, I imagine that all it will do is harden those who believe that Polanski is an extremely talented film-maker who was himself the victim of a legal circus (both true) and those who will forever wish to see him behind bars for raping a child and getting away with it (also true). (Lloyd)
Regardless of what she has to say, people will probably continue to talk about how it's all cool because Polanski is really good at making movies and it was, like, so long ago. (Baker)

No, this time I don’t only mean the “raping a child and getting away with it” part, which is an obvious, tired lie.  But look what they do: they are trying to make it sound – again! – as if we, Polanski’s defenders, have nothing to say except “he is a talented film-maker” or a “victim of a legal circus”, or “it was long ago”. They are trying to make you believe that there are no documents stating no rape, no drugging, stating consent and maturity of Geimer. To make you believe there are some other documents – the ones they never ever quote because those do not exist. Shame on them – and shame on you if you take their word, which is nothing but lies.

And now the funny part.

“For years, Geimer chose to remain silent on the subject of the crime that was committed against her all those years ago,” Lloyd suddenly declares.

No shit? So, her repeated presence at Larry King’s show, her “Good Morning, America!” appearance, her numerous interviews to American television, her part in “Wanted and Desired” were all mass hallucination? Guys, she’s taking you for total dupes.

After saying that incredible thing, Lloyd is trying to qualify: 

 “Although she long ago acknowledged that she was the “girl” in the Polanski scandal, and subsequently sued Polanski, agreeing to a settlement, she has publicly said that she forgave the Polish-born director and supported his efforts across the years to dismiss the case against him.”

Yes, and? What do you want the public to believe this time? That Geimer hasn’t been working her head off to stay in the focus of attention? That she isn’t a gold digger? Obviously, Lloyd and her likes are trying to re-create Geimer’s image: they are going to try and make you forget how she has already pumped her life’s only significant event dry. Thus, they want to make you believe that the coming book is not a crowning achievement of this gold rush, but a confession of someone who stoically “chose to remain silent for years”. How can such a confession – of such a person! – be disbelieved?

And another thing, of course. The sooner you forget her public appearances, the less risk that you will ever analyze her conflicting statements and outward lies, as we did here. The more hope, too, that you will forget what she actually said about “the crime that was committed against her”:

It was just sex.
(Geimer’s 2010 interview to Larry King)

And now let’s once again see the names of those dishonest liars. Yes, I know, their name is legion, and we’ve already been acquainted with many of them here; but let’s at least have a look at those whose falsehoods were analyzed in the present article:

Delia Lloyd
Hillel Italie
Katie J.M. Baker
Eleanor Clift

It’s them – and their likes – who don’t only persecute a man for their own gain, financial or political. They are committing a number of crimes, among which: undermining the credibility of media as a concept; abusing the right to free speech; and, worst of all, trivializing child rape, making you believe that what happened to that woman (yes, please, look at these pictures again), - sexually experienced, willing, and defined as “adult female”, her “just sex”, as she put it herself, - is in any way comparable to the tragedy of the innocent children who are actually raped. Doing so, those writers spit in the face of all genuine victims of rape – and, foulest of all, of child rape. 

If you let them fool you once again, dear reader… 

…shame on you.

 Table of Contents 

 

The Famous Case Nobody Knows