The below needs some further looking into, I am giving here only the information I have received, without making any conclusions.
In Zenowich's documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired Miss Gailey's school ID is shown full screen (I'll post the picture later), and it can be clearly seen that in 1976/77 school year she was in the 9th grade; as far as I know (though I may be mistaken), the age for this grade was 14-15 years old, not 13. I haven't found any indications that she skipped a grade at any time. A reliable source sent me this record:
according to which she would have been 14 and a half on March 10, 1977, not thirteen. It would explain her school grade, and - at least to some extent - her remarkable maturity. The Grand Jury transcript specifies that only a copy of her birth certificate was submitted by the family, not the original. If we remember that the family tried to falsify evidence (see this chapter), I wouldn't be very surprised they lied about her age, too. It has also been noticed by many that the information on her age at various periods, as given in interviews and in different sites, is often conflicting - but this is a matter of further research.
6 comments:
You should find the birth certificate that was submitted to the court back in 1977, and compare the two birthdates.
The thing is, though, it doesn't really change things for Polanski, because 14 is still too young to consent to sex in California at the time. But clearly Polanski isn't the only guilty party. What we have here is a clear, absolute set-up by the Gailey family.
I haven't found the certificate yet, but the transcript of the Grand Jury testimonies gives her birthdate as March 31, 1963 - according to the copy of birth certificate, and US public records state it is September 1, 1962. She is still under age, right, but her allegedly being still three weeks short of 14 was the reason why they could drag in this "anal sex" count, that had subsequently to be dropped, refuted by her medical examination results.
In this case too much depends on words. For moral condemnation, it is always easier to scream, "raped a 13-year-old"!!! than "had a consensual intercourse with a 14-and-a-half year old fully developed non-virginal female". Especially if we remember that 14 is the legal age of consent in 13 (thirteen) European countries - see the list I give in Chapter 3.
Adoption.com gives date of birth as May 31 1963 which would make her 13 in March 1977
http://registry.adoption.com/records/168558.html
@Melanie:
Okay, if we are to assume that Samantha was born on 31 May 1963, then what of the 01 September 1964 marriage certificate information at Ancestry.com? Seems there's something going on here. Either faked records or someone submitted a false BC to the Grand Jury.
The administrator of this blog is a liar; they once referred to Dargis as “a false rape accuser”, but it’s they who are bending the truth, and accusing Polanski’s -victim-, and the director himself, as well as Dargis, of lying:
the grand jury heard the girl in question testify that she repeatedly cried when Polasnki asked her to remove her clothes, and at every further point in her ordeal. Polanski -accepted- this testimony. He admitted to it. The creep fled because he -knew- that the charges were going to be raised against him for his criminal behaviour.
Fact: She was -13-. Fact: She had been drinking and given drugs Fact: Even were she an adult at the time of the encounter this could have and would have constituted a sex offense because the alleged offender used alcohol and drugs to distort the capacity of his victim to consent. How is Dargis “a false rape accuser,” and please articulate this intelligently and logically and void of your typical liberal bourgeois rhetoric?
The imbecile who runs this blog was sooking elsewhere about comparisons between reactions to this and von Trier's Nazi comments, because they're a typical liberal bourgeois imbecile who thinks racism is bad but misogyny is good to go as just as long as one is an artist. Here's another comparison for his or her "analysis": if it’s acceptable to support misogynist pigs who drug and rape -anyone-, let alone -minors-, why is it so horrifying if indeed von Trier supported a regime that “liquidated” people like Polanski? Why are the ethics of the sexual predation of minors miraculously open to scrutiny, but not killing people? (Were it up to me I'd sooner liquidate Polanski's sick-in-the-head apologists) The person who runs this blog is a borderline sociopath for what is essentially an infantile and inane striving with little to no knowledge of the actual encounter to convince himself or herself of Polanski's innocence. And why? Because he's an artist. Do they give the same ridiculous level of obsession and attention to every other case of creeps having sex with underage girls? I'm guessing the answer is no. I'm guessing they're just another liberal hypocrite who sooks about Nazis while simultaneously thinking misogynist shit-bags with ample money and power are somehow above and beyond critique. I hope they're proud of the fact they're supporting a creep who took advantage of a 13-year-old, and it's as simple as that no matter how you look at the facts of this case with your eyes open. The misogynist clown also ought to seriously buy a dictionary. Paedophilia is -not- a legal term, and so to assert the illusion that Polanski is not a paedophile requires some framework for what that exactly means: sexual abuse of children is only a single manifestation of paedophilia which simply defines a sexual -attraction- to children. How is a 13-year-old girl not a child, and could the imbecile who runs this blog make it more obvious they're not a parent at best, and at worst are in serious need of help if they think it's fine for adult males to have sex with underage girls?
The fantastic comment above asks for a detailed analysis, which I will undertake later; for now, I hope my readers will enjoy it as it is. Needless to say, in my research I never (not a single time!) mentioned Dargis or Von Trier. The rest is pure demagogy and the usual twisting of facts, but we'll attend to it in due time.
Post a Comment