Chapter 1: The Girl Who Couldn’t Say ‘No’

Polanski and Kinski in '79
Gailey in '77
Well, at last I was able to read Geimer’s notorious memoir.

I am happy to tell you right away that the description of the main events, those of March 11, ’77, are given by Geimer in a way that does not differ from the analysis of the documents we gave here. What we deduced from the documents was the obvious, plain story of a young girl (defined by her medical examination report as "adult female") who, having had previous experience in sex, drugs and alcohol, of her own accord went with a famous man, of her own accord posed topless, told him about her sexual experience, drank some champagne and took a tiny part of a popular recreational drug, posed naked, swam in the pool naked, - altogether behaved, in accordance with a witness’s (Helena Kaliniotes’s) account, like his lover - and finally had sex with him without being forced or coerced. In a word, our conclusion was the same as that of the probation department, the only document that gives an official conclusion of what the crime of the century was:

The offense occurred as an isolated instance of transient poor judgment… The provocative circumstances, permissiveness and knowledge of circumstances by mother, physical maturity and willingness and provocativeness of victim, and the lack of coercion by defendant… all contribute to the above impression…

We also remember that the only thing the prosecution had to grab onto was her “I was afraid” statement. During the Grand Jury interrogation, the Jury fall over themselves to avoid asking any uncomfortable question; still, when someone says things like “I went to the room and lied down”, this someone has to be asked why she did it. Then she comes up with “I was afraid” (“What were you afraid of?” – “Him”), and the Jury never tries to go into it any deeper, to find out what exactly he said or did to inspire fear, or why she thought if she just hinted at resistance he wouldn’t stop immediately (we’ll presently see that she never did anything to discourage him). Now we know the answer to this unspoken question: Nothing. And no, she was not afraid.

“I never felt in physical danger”
“I never thought he wanted to hurt me; he wanted me to enjoy it”.
“It’s just sex. He doesn’t want to hurt me. (…) We are both playing our parts.”

We also – finally! - learn that she actually knew that she was in control of the situation:

I felt certain I could have made him stop.”

There’s nothing new about that, of course – compare with Geimer’s earlier statements:

He wasn’t hurting me, and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that.
(2000, interview for A&E Television Networks documentary)
It was just sex.” (Larry King interview, 2010)

etc., but still it’s nice to have it confirmed once again, just like it’s nice to see the fact that she never put up anything that resembled resistance once again emphasized:

…How can I say no?
…So let’s climb that hill, and who cares about the dirt-biker guy [I’ll explain this part later  - J.M.], and you want my shirt? Here, and I had sex twice, hasn’t everybody, so yeah, champagne and ‘lude, that’s how it’s done, take my panties, too.
…Why don’t I say, “Don’t touch me”?
…I don’t fight. Why fight?
…I made the decision to just let him do it.
…Why did I drink? Why did I take the Quaalude? I felt certain I could have made him stop.
…We are both playing our parts.

What is a pleasant surprise, however, it’s that Geimer went as far as to admit that she actually enjoyed it:

He asks if it feels good, which it does
My body is betraying me.”

and to explain why she personally didn’t, and doesn’t, see anything wrong about early sex:

if you were anywhere from thirteen to forty-five in the 1970s – you could understand (…) there was something considered generally positive about erotic experience then, even in the absence of anything beyond the sex itself. The idea was that emotional growth came about through an expanded sexuality...

So, will we finally settle on this? The “rape” case – the one which never existed in reality, since the only thing Polanski was officially charged with after the investigation is “unlawful sexual intercourse”, but which still prevails in people’s minds and media rants – is closed at last?

Fat chance. In spite of all you’ve just read… she – guess what? She keeps calling it “rape” in every passage of the book. Even more astounding, because all those years she was very careful never to call it so, and quite recently, in one of her TV appearances, emphasized that it can only be called “rape” because she was under age. And, in spite of all of the above, which might give one hope that she finally decided to tell the truth and shame the devil – she piles up new lies atop the old ones.

Let’s not forget: the book has three authors. Apparently, Geimer is trying to tell the truth, as seen above (and more will be seen below); then Judith Newman comes and adds all the poor innocent victim stuff, not caring that it clashes with the rest; then Lawrence Silver, Geimer’s lawyer since ’77, inefficiently tries to connect the loose ends, which makes the fraud all the more obvious.

The whole aggregation reads like the authors take their readers for imbeciles (the word “fools” is too mild in the face of their concoction). They make you their sitting ducks. They use all kinds and types of lies, so profusely that a textbook could be made. We are presently going to analyze them one by one.

1 comment:

Samskara said...


I miss you dearly. The one clear voice in all of this and we need you so much. Fighting this alone is so hard. But I'm trying my Dear Russian Bear.