This is Samantha Geiner at 13. I found this photo on Google Images. This is what she looked like when Roman Polanski decided to give her champagne and a Quaalude and have sex with her. Mr. Polanski was 44 at the time.When Mike Wallace caught up with him after he'd fled to France in 1977, here's what Polanski had to say about Samantha in the days before the internet and Google Images: "Well since the girl is anonymous and I hope that for her sake she will be, I’d like to describe her to you. She is not a child, she’s a young woman, she had testified to a previous sexual experience, she was not unschooled in sexual matters, she was consenting and willing, whatever I did was wrong I think I paid for it; I went through a year of incredible hardship, and I think I paid for it…"
I have strong feelings about this, but I wasn't going to post about it. Why not? Because I haven't the heart to read comments defending Roman Polanski, should anyone make them. Which isn't to say you shouldn't make them, if you feel that way. Just that I get a sort of sick feeling, reading them. But after I saw Robert Harris' OpEd article in the NY Times defending Mr. Polanski, I was so disgusted I decided to go ahead and post.
Except that I found myself strangely at a loss for words. And so I decided to post this excerpt from Steve Lopez' September 30th article in the LA Times, in which he comments on quotes from Samantha's grand jury testimony:
Q: Did you take your shirt off or did Mr. Polanski?
A: No, I did.
Q: Was that at his request or did you volunteer to do that?
A: That was at his request.
She said Polanski later went into the bathroom and took part of a Quaalude pill and offered her some, as well, and she accepted.
Q: Why did you take it?
A: I don't know. I think I must have been pretty drunk or else I wouldn't have.
So here she is, at 13, washing down a Quaalude with champagne, and then Polanski suggested they move out to the Jacuzzi.
Q: When you got in the Jacuzzi, what were you wearing?
A: I was going to wear my underwear, but he said for me to take them off.
She says Polanski went back in the house and returned in the nude and got into the Jacuzzi with her. When he told her to move closer to him, she resisted, saying, "No. No, I got to get out."
He insisted, she testified, and so she moved closer and he put his hands around her waist. She told him she had asthma and wanted to get out, and she did. She said he followed her into the bathroom, where she told him, "I have to go home now."
Q: What did Mr. Polanski say?
A: He told me to go in the other room and lie down.
She testified that she was afraid and sat on the couch in the bedroom.
Q: What were you afraid of?
A: Him.
She testified that Polanski sat down next to her and said she'd feel better. She repeated that she had to go home.
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.
She testified that he put his mouth on her vagina.
"I was ready to cry," she said. "I was kind of -- I was going, 'No. Come on. Stop it.' But I was afraid."
She said he then pulled off her panties.
Q: What happened after that?
A: He started to have intercourse with me.
At this point, she testified, Polanski became concerned about the consequences and asked if she was on the pill.
No, she told him.
Polanski had a solution, according to her.
"He goes, 'Would you want me to go in through your back?' And I went, 'No.' "
According to her, that didn't stop Polanski, who began having anal sex with her.
This was when the victim was asked by the prosecutor if she resisted and she said, "Not really," because "I was afraid of him." She testified that when the ordeal had ended, Polanski told her, "Oh, don't tell your mother about this."
He added: "This is our secret".
cross posted at Talking to Myself
4 comments:
As the mother of 3 daughters this makes me absolutely sick. Why anyone would come to this man's defense is beyond me.
Of course what Polanski did was inexcusable. But it was a long time ago.
If I believed that Polanski's arrest was the culmination of a thirty-year Quixote-esque quest for purity and justice, I might applaud it. But what it looks like to me is an exercise in political grandstanding (and what isn't, these days?) that the nearly bankrupt State of California can ill afford.
If indeed the victim is uninterested in pursuing this case (as Mr. Harris claims in his op-ed) I think the DA should drop it. Should have dropped it a long time ago. Ms. Geiner's present interests should be tantamount here.
It's never up to the victim whether or not to prosecute a case; that decision lies in the hands of the DA. I'm dismayed that you think they should drop it. But then, I spent five years working as a clinician in child psychiatry, and so I admit I have a bias in favor of prosecuting these horrific crimes, whenever the law catches up with the perp.
It just pisses me off that it took 30 !@#$% years to get this pervert. Come on! It's not like he was hard to find. How many movies has he made in that time frame? "She's not a child, she's a young woman..." my ass! I understand Ms. Geiner wanting to let it rest and stay in the past. I feel that all this publicity could be victimizing her again, but letting Polanski off now would just be more evidence that justice is blind to all except the rich and famous.
Post a Comment