World

Geimer , 13 when sex assault occurred, wants case dropped

by smkovalinsky | September 28, 2009 at 09:01 pm

389 views | 56 Recommendations | 10 comments

“I am no longer a 13-year-old child. I have dealt with the difficulties of being a victim, have surmounted and surpassed them with one exception.
“Every time this case is brought to the attention of the Court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others. That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case.”

Source: bumpshack.com

In 1977, the age of consent was 14. It is now 18, entangling more people in the web of sexual law and ethics. Samantha Geimer's mother had suggested Polanski shoot pictures of the then almost 14 year old for Vogue magazine. She most likely had ambitions for her daughter to appear in film, and was not thinking of her welfare, but rather her marketability.

It was during a second shoot that Geimer was given champagne to drink, and the sexual assault took place.

California in 1977 was a very different culture than it is in 2009. This holds true of all of the United States. I lived in Los Angeles as a teenager in the 1970s, and I had friends who went through ordeals which make Geimer's seem tame, in that hers only occurred once, and that it was actually viewed as a crime at all.

I think considering that Geimer wants it dropped, her wishes should be respected. Polanski is an old man, the case was from another era and another culture, and if anything sexual law has become Draconian in our present time: There is not the slightest potential for laxness.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

generaldecay

at 22:14 on September 28th, 2009

Interesting. However, I disagree. Cultural differences aside, rape is still rape. Although I admit that there is a grey area around the age of consent that was in place then.

squirleywrath (not verified)

at 02:27 on September 29th, 2009

While there may have been a gray area at the time, the law is clear: over 13 ok, under not ok (and it should not have been ok even at 14). Polanski would have been at least in his 30's, that is not acceptable.I can understand when the guy just turned 18 and she is 17 and they are in the same grade or one apart. But to me there is no gray area here: it was rape.

Patricia Turo

at 00:46 on September 29th, 2009

Since when does a victim get to decide if her assailant should be prosecuted. I thought that was up to the courts. I don't think it is up to her no matter how talented he is avoid serving his time for the crime, one he admitted to in fact. Hollywood and the rest of the world who think it is OK because it happened so long ago and he is so famous needs to examine their values. From what I'm reading evidently she was given a sum of money by Polanski as a settlement.

generaldecay

at 01:14 on September 29th, 2009

Patricia, that's correct. (At least it is here.) It is a Criminal Justice matter and not a civic one.

squirleywrath (not verified)

at 02:30 on September 29th, 2009

The problem with this kind of case is that without the victim the prosecutor usually does not have enough evidence to win, at least not from the '70's. Today DNA can be used. But in this case it will strictly be a case of "he said she said." Without she cooperating, I don't think you can convict he.

albertacowpoke

at 05:54 on September 29th, 2009

He was already convicted. He plead guilty and disappeared before his sentencing hearing. By that logic anyone can commit a crime and disappear for 30 years and be forgiven. Not my idea of justice, sorry.

sara star

at 03:35 on September 29th, 2009

So the victim gets victimized again by the courts. I don't necessarily think this is justice served.

albertacowpoke

at 05:57 on September 29th, 2009

See my comment above. In most States these days he would get 25 years. In all likelihood even if he gets extradited they will just slap his hands.

jazzyzazzy

at 16:47 on September 29th, 2009

The mans a bleedin pervert so he should have been prosecuted and jailed.As for the victim I do wonder.! Has she been paid to keep her mouth shut or threatened,whatever the reason for keeping stump on a matter of rape is. Its just not good enough.

rob w (not verified)

at 22:57 on September 29th, 2009

What's all this about the age of consent? Read the grand jury transcript at www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html and you'll see that there were multiple "no's" and zero "yes's." It's rape, folks. He pleaded guilty to statutory rape, but by the testimony, it's aggravated rape. Man, I got nieces that age, and if someone did that to one of them... well, let's just say he'd WANT to be sent to prison.