Chapter 5. The Anatomy of Lies

But before we proceed, we’ll pay attention to some aspects we’ve been disregarding up to this point, and start with an important side of Ms.Geimer’s personality. Regrettably, she is a big-time, confirmed liar.


After everything we’ve read in the previous chapters, one might think that I am now repeating the obvious: the forged evidence alone reduces her credibility to zero. Still, in the absence of all evidence except forged, with the “victim’s” conflicting statements, with her testimony contradicting the experts’ finding, with, in a word, everything we’ve already seen in the previous chapters, her credibility (however undermined by now), could probably be restored, at least to some extent, if throughout her life she proved herself trustworthy. But an analysis of her later statements only makes things worse.
  
I already mentioned that she contradicts herself at every step; these contradictions are too outrageous to be written off as faults of memory. I’ll start with the biggest and filthiest one, the earlier to get it over with – it is not pretty.

In a Hattie Kauffman 2003 interview, Samantha Geimer says:
“The last shots were taken in the Jacuzzi, and then he got into the Jacuzzi, and that’s when I started realizing that I may be in trouble. I felt uncomfortable I knew it didn’t feel right, so I told him that I wanted to get out of the Jacuzzi, that the steam was giving me an asthma attack, that I couldn’t breathe, I thought that maybe he should take me home. I just made it up. So he said ok, you know, come out now and I grabbed the towel and went into the house.”

We know from her GJ testimony that she didn’t go directly to the house, but to swim in the pool instead, without bothering to put anything on. But the worst is yet to come.

Geimer: And that’s also when he said, here, take this, this will help you, a little piece of a pill. To relax my asthma attack.
Kauffman: What was the pill?
Geimer: It was a piece of a Quaalude.

But, wait! She testified the Quaalude part happened prior to taking the Jacuzzi shots. She testified that he asked her if it was Quaalude and she said it was. That he asked her if she wanted a piece, not even suggested that she take it, and she took it herself of her own accord.

Now she is saying that he deceived her into taking it, under the guise of a medicine. In other words, that he abused the trust of a helpless, innocent child. More than that: since he wouldn’t have known she faked the attack, of a sick child.

I don’t know what to call it, guys. Dirty trick doesn’t seem to begin to describe it. Ignoble? Infamous? Of course her reasons are obvious, she wants to pose as an innocent victim, and it doesn’t behoove innocent victims to be well acquainted with drugs, however light, and willingly take them; but the slander she invents exposes tremendous human ignominy. The only thing she ever managed to invent on a par with this one was the sodomy bit. We may relax now, all her other lies will seem quite tame comparing with this one.

In her Larry King 2003 interview she says, “It was a very long time ago, and it is hard to remember exactly the way everything happened. But I've had to repeat the story so many times, I know it by heart.” Well, one might say that a real rape victim never forgets details… but it’s psychology. Now, for something more tangible: a liar should have a good memory. She really should have learned it by heart, at least her GJ testimony, not to contradict herself at every step.

From the same 2003 interview: “I guess he must have seen a picture of me and came by to meet me and then asked, you know with the pretense that he was interested in photographing me from the beginning.” Now, why does she say that? It is impossible for her not to know that her sister’s boyfriend asked Polanski to photograph her, she confirms it herself in her 2010 Larry King interview (“He wanted a young American model, a female. He had done, I believe, Natasha Kinski. And he was looking at different, more American, as a contrast.”) so why is she lying? Why, of course to bring in that “pretense” bit. We’ll see that none of her lies are innocent, none of them a mere product of unrestrained imagination and/or faulty memory: they are always calculated to  enhance her own image, so what if she does some slander along the way?

In the same interview, she says that on the day of the second photo session, she “tried to take a girlfriend along because I was feeling uncomfortable. But he kind of at the last minute asked her not to go. So actually when I left, my mom didn't realize I was going alone.” But this part is different in their testimonies; more important, this lie is also refuted by both mother’s and daughter’s accounts of their phone conversation from Nicholson’s house. It’s that I-want-to-look-better-and-prevent-unpleasant-questions trick again; it only comes up in 2003, by which time she must have gotten tired of hearing “why did your mother let you?” and finally thought of this excuse to shut everyone up. The minute detail that in this interpretation Polanski looks obviously premeditating won’t hurt either; she has already insinuated the same by her “pretense” lies. It is interesting that she never brings this up on other occasions, though: forgot? 

From her 1997 interview: “On Feb. 20, 1977, Polanski took me on our first photo shoot in a hillside area just a few blocks from my house. We shot a roll of film; then he asked me to take off my shirt and took topless photos while I changed. I let him do it, but I felt self-conscious. I was thinking, "I shouldn't be doing this," but I was a kid, so I thought if it wasn't okay, he wouldn't tell me to do it. If I'd told my mom, she would never have let me go with him the second time. When he made another appointment a few weeks later, she had no reason to suspect anything. I didn't want to go, but I still thought it would be a good opportunity.” Here she contradicts herself within one paragraph, without stopping to catch her breath. She didn’t want to go, but she didn’t tell her mother about the topless pictures because if she had, mother wouldn’t have let her go. Which is the truth? The truth, apparently, is that in her innocent mind (she pronouncedly refers to herself as a “kid”) the “good opportunity” consideration overweighed all others so heavily that she saw fit to lie to her mother? The mother who, as we remember, conveniently refrained from asking what kind of photos were taken. In her Larry King 2010 interview Samantha changes her mind and says, “I don't know why I didn't tell my mom. I didn't think there'd be a second photo shoot.” So how about her “she would never have let me go with him the second time”? Puzzles, puzzles…

He picked me up again on March 10 at around 4 p.m. In the car he asked me if I'd ever had sex. I had, once (it was embarrassing to be a virgin among my friends), so I said yes.” She says “once”, to the Jury she said “twice”, Dalton claims to have found out she had more than one sexual partner, and while in 2003 she makes a clumsy joke on being “as close as you can get to being a virgin but just one step away”, in the 2010 Larry King interviews she straightforwardly says, “I had a boyfriend for a long time. And we had become sexually active, yes.”

About champagne, she says, “he kept refilling my glass”. She didn’t say that to the Jury (and three people left the bottle half-full): on the contrary, she said, “I was drinking some of his, too.” Exactly like that Quaalude part: when someone induces you to drink, it sounds more innocent than when you’re doing that of your own accord (remember, in her testimony there’s no single mention of him asking her to drink – only to pose with the glass).

Then he asks me to pose topless again and says he wants to take pictures in the Jacuzzi. I don't have my bathing suit so I get in in my underwear.” But she testified to be naked in the Jacuzzi? Looks like she wanted to avoid the unpleasant question of why she undressed if she wasn’t forced to: again, wouldn’t look too nice of a victim to first drink, then to undress of her own accord. The facts are continuously twisted to suit a given situation.

He takes pictures, then he gets in naked and now I'm thinking, "Oh, this is not right." I'm scared and woozy, so I tell him I have asthma and to take me home. I get out, grab a towel, but he doesn't want to take me home yet. That's when he takes out the Quaaludes and asks me if I've ever had one. I lie and say yes. I take one-thirdLie and say yes? So, she lied to the GJ when she said she had had Quaaludes before? No, she wants to look better in the eyes of the public, again; so she lies, again. You will have noticed that this account is right in between the one given in the testimony and that of 2003: here, he doesn’t deceive her into taking it, she takes it herself, but she miraculously sees him produce it, which is, according to the testimony, not true; also the sequence of events is different. The swimming pool part is omitted again, and again he is naked. But in 2003 we hear:

KING: What was he wearing?
GEIMER: I guess shorts or something. I don't remember.

This negates the whole him-getting-into-the-Jacuzzi part, as I indicated above. The man with you either was naked, or he wasn’t; it’s not like you’re not sure whether he was wearing a necktie or cufflinks.

One tricky moment still can’t be avoided. King (2003) asks, “But to get out [of the Jacuzzi] you would have -- he would have had to seen you topless?”
She says, “Oh, right, he photographed me topless. He'd seen me topless. I just was thinking, well this is very European, it must be all right.” Every time this question arises, she gives this same answer. Topless photos on the first day? – I thought they would be cropped. Bare breasts? – I thought it was done in Europe. But the question is different, and she knows it. The question is: you were half-naked and then stark naked in front of a man and showed no inhibitions about it? She pretends to misunderstand it every time it creeps in, and cleverly sidetracks the conversation. Remarkably consistent, considering she can’t get any other detail straight; and this outstanding feat of memory clearly proves that she knows her behavior was provocative.

Now, the crucial part. King asks, “Did he forcibly rape you?” She says, “You know, I said no. I didn't fight him off. I said like, no, no, I don't want to go in there, no. I don't want to do this, no. And then I didn't know what else to do. We were alone. And I didn't want to -- I didn't know what would happen if I made a scene.” Didn’t know, and didn’t bother to find out; didn’t know what else to do, but never made any attempt at just walking out (earlier in the interview she mentions “being very far from home”, this pathetic excuse she used to the Jury too, never realizing it makes her someone who would trade sex for a ride) but it’s not all. “I was just scared and after giving some resistance figured, well, I guess I'll get to go home after this.” Eh? Resistance? What kind of resistance? Why didn’t you mention it to the Grand Jury? How did he react to your resistance? Bullshit, of course: seven years later the same King would ask, “Did he get rough?” And she will reply, “No, no. He was just persuasive. And I was at a complete loss to resist because I just -- people didn't talk about things like this in 1977.” So much for her resistance bit. He was persuasive, and she was persuaded.

King gives himself away for a moment, though. He says, announcing a commercial break, “We will continue this incredible story right after this.” I applaud his choice of the word.

Now Angelica Huston comes up, and King carefully inquires:
KING: Were you obviously 13?
Geimer quickly understands what he is driving at, and reacts immediately:
She never got a look at me. I kind of left quickly without really saying hello to her. So she never saw me.
But Angelica gave a detailed account of Samantha’s appearance and behavior! This is, again, something the public should never be reminded of, because it negates the innocent victim image.

Now, Polanski takes her home, and “I just went straight into my room, and mom told me later she was kind of wondering why my hair was damp.” Clever. Mother testified she had known about the Jacuzzi shots, but the public doesn’t have to know this. Anything to avoid uncomfortable questions.

She tells King about her medical examination. He asks her “So they proved that there was sexual...” (he can’t find a proper word, and I understand him. Saying “assault” would be stupid, and saying “intercourse” might anger his audience) and she says, “I think so, yes.” She doesn’t know her medical examination came out all negative? Come on.

And finally, to crown her lies, she says: “They found evidence in his room. And after that, he was arrested.” What evidence? The prosecution didn’t have one single bit of evidence. How does she imagine this “evidence” anyway? I wonder what the audience made of this and what unhealthy sexual fantasies she may have engendered with this glib statement.

There’s one more detail that makes me sick. King says: “And his life, of course, would never be -- he would always be -- and he will be if he wins these awards, it's always going to say when he passes on in the first paragraph of the obituary, Roman Polanski who...”

And it is at this moment that she smirks. Triumphantly. Whenever I try to develop any kind of good feelings for her, this smirk ruins it for me. The smirk, and the Quaaludes brutal, filthy lie.

Of course I realize how difficult her position is. She is always consistent in one point: the intercourse wasn’t forcible, and she wasn’t traumatized by it. She has never displayed any ambiguity about this. It is, however, important for her to emphasize that at the same time it wasn’t totally consensual ("I was telling him, 'No', you know, 'Keep away'"), or she would expose herself as a perjurer. Thus, all her lies are always about one and the same thing: her own image as an innocent victim of illegal intercourse, who didn’t resist, and didn’t consent.  It is a hard task, and she has to lie a lot.

And she is not alone. There’s another liar by her side to help her, her attorney Silver.

Do you remember the panties? I hope so, the enormity of that forgery isn’t something easy to forget. Now, let’s listen to Silver’s version.

Dalton called me on the phone, clearly now, I think, having the results on the lab report, saying, "You know, what do you think would happen if we pursued a plea bargain with the prosecution?" At which point I realized that now Polanski had an interest, that the stain in the panties was going to be brutal evidence for them.

A lawyer, he is careful enough to say “I think, having the results,” so he can’t be accused of straight lies; and still it is lies, all around. First, I don’t think he didn’t hear about the experts’ findings. Next, it has been stated countless times, and by him too, that it was Geimer’s side that insisted on there being no trial! I quote Brenneman: “Lawrence Silver, Geimer’s attorney, reads a three-page letter urging the court to accept the plea because the publicity resulting from trial would create “a stigma which would attach itself to her for a lifetime.” No, I’d better quote Silver himself, from Larry King 2003 interview: We had agreed to a plea bargain. It wasn't what the prosecution wanted, it certainly wasn't what Polanski wanted, but it was what we wanted. We were the victim and this is the way in which Samantha would not be in trial.  Brenneman again: “Silver had made it clear to the District Attorney’s office that his client would not cooperate with the prosecution;” also “the victim’s parents had forced the plea agreement by serving notice that their daughter would refuse to testify”. Nobody ever said anything to the contrary – except Silver, who, in the nice tradition of Silver-Geimer team, is not averse to contradicting himself whenever lies seem convenient.

In 2010, King asks him a sly question. King apparently knows his business, and the question is right on the mark.

KING: You didn't want her to testify?
SILVER: Wasn't so much being testifying. It was the focus, her anonymity at the time.

Bullshit. What “anonymity” is he ever talking about, with the European press shouting her name from the rooftops, with herself constantly complaining of how traumatized she was by the media (not by Polanski, let me remind you once again) who came to school and people “taking pictures in our window”! Anonymity my ass. But he keeps playing this card (like he did in his “three-page letter”), because he obviously can’t state the real reason.

I do not blame him for this. One doesn’t expect a lawyer to say, “We know that our client’s allegations won’t stand questioning, and don’t want her to be exposed as a liar and a perjurer”. I do blame him, however, for twisting the facts and distorting the truth. 

In the same 2010 interview, he perpetuates the lies that are already in wide circulation. “He provided her with an illegal narcotic,” he says. “He provided her with alcohol.” I am not sure Quaaludes, a prescription drug widely used at that time, can be called “illegal narcotic”, equating them with heroin or crack without any qualification; but what I am sure of is that using these “he provided her” lies is foul play. Neither alcohol or Quaaludes belonged to Polanski, and there’s big difference between “she took them of her own accord in his presence” and “he provided her”. But the worst is yet to come. Out of the blue, Silver blurts out: “It's rape by force.

WTF? I realize I’m beginning to sound like Polanski at his worst (for lack of more serious shortcomings, his enemies love to censure his using obscenities), but seriously, WTF? What force? What should we do now – remind him of her medical examination, of her testimony where no “force” was ever mentioned, of her countless instances of insisting that he never hurt her, wasn’t “mean or forceful”? Or of her saying right here, in this very interview, “it was just sex”? What game are you playing, man? It is all the more puzzling since this antic comes right after King asking,

KING: If she doesn't protest, is it still rape?

Both Geimer and Silver swallow this “doesn’t protest” – after all, she just dismissed King’s question whether Polanski “got rough”, saying “No, no, he was just persuasive” - and Silver starts with a comparatively innocent “Oh, sure. It's rape because she's under 16, apparently going to finally explain to the audience the difference between “statutory rape”, an unfortunate name for unlawful intercourse, which took place, and “forcible rape”, which never did… but then he conjures this “provided her” bit, and triumphantly crowns his speech with “rape by force”, a trick a lawyer just can’t do. There’s only one hope left – I took this from CNN transcripts page, maybe they omitted a “not” somewhere in this sentence? What’s a particle anyway? It would be better than to believe a lawyer may discard any idea of law when it doesn’t suit his purpose.

Though, of course, we’ve already seen the same.
In 1977/78.
And again, in 2009/10.

But before we analyze this later part, let’s address something more pleasant.

33 comments:

Leigh said...

A lot of these so called lies can be explained: Maybe he did say the quaalude would help her. She never said he lied about what it was, maybe her sisters boyfriend did show Polanski a photo of her that made him want to photograph her, just because she didn't mention a friend being brought along in public statements you've seen doesn't mean it didn't happen, she might have not wanted to see Polanski but felt it was a good opportunity, she might have been referring to saying no when she said she resisted and I read they found drugs on Polanski maybe that is the evidence she is referring to.

The rest of it can also be explained by the fact she is being asked about events that happened decades ago so her memory might not be as good as she thinks.

People lie all the time it doesn't mean they can't be victims of a crime. Polanski admits he was unfaithful to Sharon Tate so his vows of fidelity were lies but that doesn't mean everything he says is a lie anymore than it proves everything Samantha says about Polanski is a lie if she is intentionally lying.

A person - in this case an adolescent - is afraid what will happen if they run off so they don't. What is so difficult to understand about that?

As for your comments about real rape victims not forgetting I once again point you towards rape and sexual assault myths:

MYTH: If details of a story are changed, or someone waits to report a rape, it means the person lied about having been raped. FACT: Very few sexual-assault victims report the incident immediately, and details usually do get changed in the repeated telling.

Jean said...

Thank you Leigh, very nice. Pity it is unconvincing, incoherent, revealing unwillingness to analyze documents, and altogether inadequate. Try again?

P.S. The “maybe he did say” part is truly priceless… right into my collection of gems I display in Chapter 8.

Anonymous said...

>>MYTH: If details of a story are changed, or someone waits to report a rape, it means the person lied about having been raped.
FACT: Very few sexual-assault victims report the incident immediately, and details usually do get changed in the repeated telling.>>

You're right about the fact that sexual-assault victims don't always report their assault right away. But in this instance, Samantha's mother did report "rape" to the police only a few hours after Samantha's time with Polanski. Well within the time period needed for a doctor to do a rape-kit on her. And what the rape-kit reveals is a complete lack of evidence for forcible rape. No wonder the story keeps changing over the years--it's to cover up this very fact.

Anonymous said...

If Leighs comment is so clearly wrong then it shouldn't be difficult to point out the flaws in his/her arguments. Anyone can respond that what someones saying is inadequate but if you can't point out why its usually because you don't have an adequate response.

Saying "maybe he did" just shows that Leigh isn't assuming he/she knows what happened and is considering different possibilities.

Anonymous said...

"Well within the time period needed for a doctor to do a rape-kit on her. And what the rape-kit reveals is a complete lack of evidence for forcible rape"

Some sources say that Dr Larson who performed the rape kit testified that there isn't always physical evidence in rape cases. Until Jean provides a link to the testimony of Dr Larson proving or disproving that he said this then we don't know the full picture on this.

Jean said...

Well, my grabbing-at-straws friends, now you can see Larson’s testimony on the Documents page. He says exactly what I said he said – you know why? Because, surprize, surprize, I go by documents only.

To the second Anonymous:
ROFL, did I impress you, throughout my blog, as someone who has nothing to say?
I respect my readers too much, and a priory attribute to them some intelligence, ability to read and analyze material, compare statements and make conclusions.

Now, I’ll dissect for you one of these, and hope you can do the rest yourself.

>>Maybe he did say the quaalude would help her.<<

Help her for what? She testified she came up with the asthma lies only in the tub. She testified the quaaludes part was before the tub. There was nothing to help her for.
She testified that it was she who confirmed to him they WERE quaaludes.
She testified that he did not force her to take them, tell her to take them, or even ask her to take them. He only asked her IF SHE WANTED SOME, to which she said “ok”.
What she said in that interview directly contradicts her testimony at all points, her other statements in other interviews, and is a filthy, cynical lie. Any attempts at justifying it are pathetic and as ignoble as the lie itself.

Christian said...

This is a personal message for Jean (its up to you if you wish to print it):

I was directed to this page by several young women who are temporarily housed in Crisis Centre I am assistant manager in. I know several of them have posted comments - which I encouraged them to do - but if any of the comments are of an aggressive nature I sincerely apologize and ask you to understand that this is a very sensitive issue for these women.

Anonymous said...

"Some sources say that Dr Larson who performed the rape kit testified that there isn't always physical evidence in rape cases."

Dr. Larson's rape-kit contradicted Samantha Gailey's grand jury testimony of forcible double-sodomy, forcible vaginal penetration, and semen spread all over her ass-crack. The rape-kit showed none of this testimony to be true.

You see, I'm one of those old fashioned people who believe in evidence-based justice and due process. I am NOT one of those hysterical modern ideologues who think that they're entitled to their own facts.

Here are the real facts: forcible rape leaves evidence--especially where anal penetration is involved. A grown man like Polanski shoving his cock up a young girl's ass (not once, but twice) is going to leave evidence behind like bruising and bleeding.

On this basis alone, the case should be thrown out.

Christian said...

"Here are the real facts: forcible rape leaves evidence--especially where anal penetration is involved. A grown man like Polanski shoving his cock up a young girl's ass (not once, but twice) is going to leave evidence behind like bruising and bleeding"

Dr Larson said that there is not always going to be physical evidence of anal intercourse after a bowel movement which Samanthha said she had therefore he did NOT find that the physical evidence contradicted what she said.

A person pointing this out is not a
"hysterical modern ideologue" making up their own facts they are simply someone who wants to know all the facts before denouncing either Roman Polanski or Samantha Geimer.

Jean said...

Christian - please go back to Dr.Larson's testimony, or read my reply (which is something, I noticed, you NEVER do) to your comment at Conclusion: FAQ. Doctor Larson NEVER EVER said such an idiotic thing. You are either deliberately distorting what he said, or being deliberatly blind, too eager to read your own preconception into his words.

Jean said...

Now, for Christian personal message of May 7, 2011 4:29 AM – since he said it was up to me whether or not to post it, I chose to do so, and here is why.

I want to address all these ladies with a sincere word of gratitude. No, none of you has been aggressive, or rude, or full of blind condemnation – unlike, regrettabely, so many other people.

You have all been tactful, patient, and open-minded. Thank you really, really much for this.

Now I have a better understanding of why you were trying to protect Geimer (against all logic and common sense) – you felt like she was one of you, and I was treating unfairly.

Hear me, I beg. I know you’ve already heard most part of what I said, let me tell you one more thing now. Bear with me one more time.

I am not young, and in my life I too met women who have been abused. All my heart goes out to them, as it does to you.

And this is exactly the reason why I despise Geimer.

What with her trying to maintain incompatible things, her letting most (and worst) of mankind still call it “rape”, she mocks all the women who have really been raped. She trivializes their ordeal. That’s what I just can’t forgive - or dismiss.

The sweet, graceful, beautiful, tender, the best that exists in the world – women – abused, raped, trampled on, having had to go through real suffering, knowing everything Samskara spoke about – feeling dirty, feeling humiliated, feeling violated – will you ever refer to your plight in such terms:

**

He HAD SEX with me.

(KING: Did he get rough?)
No, no. He was just persuasive.

The WORST part was, NO-ONE BELIEVED ME. Everybody thought I was making it up. It was so traumatic, STARTING that night WHEN MY MOTHER CALLED THE POLICE.

I NEVER had a chance to be ANGRY WITH HIM. By the next day everything was so BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION.

(CALLER: I was just wondering, if Samantha had a daughter and it happened to her, what option would she take?)
I might consider NOT CALLING THE POLICE after everything the press and the police and the judge put me through.

(KING: Maybe it's because of the years, but neither of you [Geimer and Silver – J.M.] feel particularly angry at Roman Polanski.)
No. Not anymore. NOT EVEN THEN. I mean, it just... I was angry BECAUSE HE WAS THE CAUSE OF THE PUBLICITY and the publicity was the WORST thing that ever happened to me.
(KING: But not angry that he had sex with you.)
The publicity was so terrible, that -- and so immediate that it just OVERSHADOWED everything that happened that night.

It was JUST SEX.

**

And now remember or re-read everything else you already know, the forged evidence including.

If I didn’t feel so strongly for you, for real victims of real rapes, I wouldn’t feel so strongly against the predatory mercenary females. It’s them who cast their shadow on all women, and it’s Geimer’s flippancy and unwillingness to finally state the truth unambiguously that makes the worst among people (not only men) think that there’s nothing really serious about rape. It is all wrong, because it puts all genuine victims of rape in bad light in the eyes of ignorant mob – and, sadly, the ignorant form the majority - if we don’t learn to draw a definite line between rape and intercourse. “Just sex”, in her own words.

Anonymous said...

Hi
I've read your analysis of the case, and it's very interesting.
However, I think you're too harsh against Samantha Geimer. She never wanted all of that to happen. She didn't call the cops; her mother did. It's like, whatever the Gailey family wanted to do when they called the cops, they almost immediately regretted it probably just hours afterwards. Very quickly, the situation was completely beyond their control, and the justice and media circus was horrible both for Polanski and for them. In her way, Samantha is hinting that she wasn't indeed a rape victim, but she's surrounded by media who made her the "child rape victim of the century"; for the media, Polanski is a child rapist; anything she says which goes against that fact is dismissed. She's perhaps one of the few American people who dares to go to Polanski's defense. Besides, she can't say clearly that she wasn't raped, unless being attacked for perjury, for a Grand Jury testimony she did under intense pressure, and in fact, never wanted to do ; besides, at the time, the plea bargain taken was supposed to end the judicial case once and for all.The real responsibles of that horrible miscarriage of justice are Judge Rittenband, but mostly, THE MEDIA, who dare insult Polanski when the alleged victim herself says that they are much worse.

Jean said...

Thank you for commenting, anon. Even if we disagree about Geimer's role, we still agree on the most important points, and that's what really matters.

I will later reply more elaborately, now I only want to thank you once again for having read this, cared to leave a comment, and being capable of unprejudiced reasoning - I know it's too much to ask of most people nowadays.

Tiffany said...

"WTF? I realize I’m beginning to sound like Polanski at his worst (for lack of more serious shortcomings, his enemies love to censure his using obscenities), but seriously, WTF?"


I've never heard Mr. Polanski use obscenities. Do you have a video or something?

Jean said...

LOL, I am not at home at the moment (traveling) and I do not have all my materials ready, but sometimes he says things like "I don't give a flying f***" - I'll link you when I am back (mid-October)

Tiffany said...

Ok, thank you! Have fun traveling!

John KP said...

The Blog of lies:

http://polanski-oddmanout.blogspot.com/2011/03/chapter-4-anatomy-of-lies.html

http://polanski-oddmanout.blogspot.com/2011/03/chapter-4-anatomy-of-lies.html

Anonymous said...

You know, I can believe that 'perhaps' all of Geimer's statements are a simple lapse of memory, however, this was supposed to be if not the most horrible thing that has ever happened to her, yet she's actively campaigning to have all the charges against Polanski dropped? It doesn't make sense. Never has. Any rape victim I have ever met doesn't want their rapist to walk free and clear, they want justice. It doesn't matter how they get it, they want it. It's appropriate to want it, however, in her case Geimer doesn't even seem to care. She cares more about how she looks in the press rather than what happened to her. She seems perfectly fine to have this stuff aired when it suits her, but then backtracks and runs for cover when the press comes to her door. Which is it? I don't get this woman. It's prefectly fine as long as she can control the message, but not fine when people want to call her out on obvious lies.

As far as rape victims not wanting to report what happened to them, some don't. In this case, there was a wait time between the time she got home to the time her mother called the police almost as if there was a deliberateness in order to have the Quaalude and champagne be out of her system in case there was a blood test taken, of which I'm shocked there wasn't. Larson didn't report anything about her blook alcohol level which would have been ample proof of her veracity if she indeed did have alcohol and 'drugs' pushed on her by Polanski. But there is no blood test, nothing to prove that aspect. She also claims to have been anally raped twice by Polanski. Larson reported there was no proof of it, yet said in some cases there isn't. I dare anyone to have unlubricated anal sex and there not be any proof of it. Any rape victim has some proof, yet there is none in this case and Larson's assertion there isn't always proof is purely a cover his own ass statement. Gunson would have been careful to have this admitted into evidence to make sure he's 'saved' as it were from a reversal on this issue. If this had gone to trial, Larson would have had a hard time proving this was the case if Dalton had decided to bring forth proof to the contrary in other cases involving anal rape with proof of it. Consider too her supposed age at the time. How does a 'child' not have proof of rear entry? This is the reason McMartin was reversed and those indicted were cleared due to the impossibility of all they said happening due to no proof. In that case, the children, who were all under age 10, said knives had been taken to their 'heinies' and to their genitals but no medical evidence showed any damage. In fact no dameage to tissues or the interior walls of the colon, yet they said knives and other objects were inserted.

Larson's testimony could largely be ignored since it had no real relevence since it showed nothing was abnormal about her anatomy other than he listed her as an adult female. That is quizzical to say the least.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Hi
I've read your analysis of the case, and it's very interesting.
However, I think you're too harsh against Samantha Geimer. She never wanted all of that to happen. She didn't call the cops; her mother did. It's like, whatever the Gailey family wanted to do when they called the cops, they almost immediately regretted it probably just hours afterwards. Very quickly, the situation was completely beyond their control, and the justice and media circus was horrible both for Polanski and for them. In her way, Samantha is hinting that she wasn't indeed a rape victim, but she's surrounded by media who made her the "child rape victim of the century"; for the media, Polanski is a child rapist; anything she says which goes against that fact is dismissed. She's perhaps one of the few American people who dares to go to Polanski's defense. Besides, she can't say clearly that she wasn't raped, unless being attacked for perjury, for a Grand Jury testimony she did under intense pressure, and in fact, never wanted to do ; besides, at the time, the plea bargain taken was supposed to end the judicial case once and for all.The real responsibles of that horrible miscarriage of justice are Judge Rittenband, but mostly, THE MEDIA, who dare insult Polanski when the alleged victim herself says that they are much worse.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

To the above commenter, the statute of limitations is over on perjury. That is ten years from the date of the incident, however, as we're seeing in the Natalie Wood case, if there is a conspiracy involved in that perjury, there is no statute as it reflects back on the original lie. So if it can be proven Geimer and her mother were involved in a conspiracy to frame Polanski, both she and her mother could face charges and that statute of limitations would be nullified. She is still in legal jeopardy by her lie if she did come out and say it was a fabrication as a part of a conspiracy. So she knows she's in deep doo-doo if she admits it was anything else other than a rape, but the problem is, the evidence has never supported her version of the events. She has to perpetuate her victimhood or else she'd be called out as Chicken Little with the sky falling. To say that her ensuing press interviews are part of a lapse of memory, is giving her too much leeway. It's what it is... a lie perpetuated for her own gain. When that gain wasn't followed up on namely Polanski telling the mother his friend wasn't going to be taking on any more clients, this became vindictiveness pure and simple.

Samskara Impressions said...

Jean:

I'm posting here to ask about something mentioned in Geimer's 2003 Larry king interview. She said something about having met Polanski THREE times including the March 1977 event. If so, then there's another lie she's told to add to the litany of others. Where does she get this third time?

BTW, another blog post for you: http://samskara.org/journal/2011/11/20/astounsing/

I've also added you to my blogroll. Friends for friends.

Samskara

Jean said...

Samskara: thank you for adding me to the blogroll!

As far as Geimer's statements are concerned, I suppose she didn't lie this time, for once. I think the first time was when he came to the house to have a look at her and to agree on the first session.

Anon: Yes, Geimer's position is precarious. If she keeps harping about how she said "no", it's rape, and should be tried as such. Then, obviously, all her lies will come to light, and she can't allow this to happen. If, however, she explicitly confesses that she consented, it will make her a perjurer and, as you pointed out, a closer scrutiny will expose her as participant of a conspiracy (panties and all). Her only option is to continuously plead for the case to be dropped, which is what she is doing. Not, of course, out of any noble feelings some are trying to ascribe to her, but only to cover her own sorry ass.

And many, many thanks for commenting!

Samskara Impressions said...

Jean:

From what I understand from reading Polanski's book, there were only two times. The one time in February when he took the initial test shots on the hill above Geimer's house and the other session on March 10. I don't recall there being another time prior to the initial meeting in February. Even in the Grand Jury hearing, Geimer only says twice. So where is the third time?

Sam

Jean said...

No, in the memoirs he describes it the following way: "The next day, a Sunday, I drove out to Jane's home..." then he describes the family, and the brief appearance of "Sandra" (Samantha)
Then: "I did call, some days later, and fixed a time. When I arrived with my cameras..." - they pick clothes and go to the hills for the first session.
So, she didn't lie this time. She can't lie in every word, after all - no, only when it suits her. Although sometimes I begin to think she is a compulsive liar; this time, however, she managed to keep to the facts.

Samskara Impressions said...

Anonymous said...
Hi
I've read your analysis of the case, and it's very interesting.
However, I think you're too harsh against Samantha Geimer. She never wanted all of that to happen. She didn't call the cops; her mother did. It's like, whatever the Gailey family wanted to do when they called the cops, they almost immediately regretted it probably just hours afterwards. Very quickly, the situation was completely beyond their control, and the justice and media circus was horrible both for Polanski and for them. In her way, Samantha is hinting that she wasn't indeed a rape victim, but she's surrounded by media who made her the "child rape victim of the century"; for the media, Polanski is a child rapist; anything she says which goes against that fact is dismissed. She's perhaps one of the few American people who dares to go to Polanski's defense. Besides, she can't say clearly that she wasn't raped, unless being attacked for perjury, for a Grand Jury testimony she did under intense pressure, and in fact, never wanted to do ; besides, at the time, the plea bargain taken was supposed to end the judicial case once and for all.The real responsibles of that horrible miscarriage of justice are Judge Rittenband, but mostly, THE MEDIA, who dare insult Polanski when the alleged victim herself says that they are much worse.

************************************************************************************************************

To Anon:

You give Geimer entirely too much credit. She has stated on more than one occasion she wanted to become an actress like her mom. She wanted to be like her mom. She may not have called the police, but she didn't beg her not to. Susan Gailey sounds like a mother with Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. She stood by and allowed her daughter to go through a medical examination, this is part of the syndrome. This means she was looking for attention. The situation was always under the control. When interviewed by Irwin Gold, Polanski's probation officer, he mentioned a permissiveness within the home and cites the culpability on behalf of both the mother and the daughter. There was also the little event of some canoodling outside of Gunson's office by the poor, helpless little rape victim Samantha and her mother's 38 year-old boyfriend. An aid of Gunson's saw this and went to Rittenband with it. He dismissed it. The aid when to Douglas Dalton, Polanski's attorney, and it was based on this that Dalton wanted to find out who else had had sex with Geimer and why they weren't being charged as well. This can be seen in the Zenovich documentary.

If Geimer had any decency, she'd go on national television with someone like Diane Sawyer and admit her guilt and say she lied. Show contrition for what she and her grifter mother put Polanski, his wife Emmanuelle and children through these 33 years. She HAS to go to Polanski's defense because it was her and her mother who have continued this charade these past years. She's done nothing to outwardly dispute anything King or any other interviewer has put to her. She hasn't said, "No, it was not rape. No, he never hurt me. Yes, I wanted it." She likes to have her cake and eat it too. To say that she never wanted any of this is shortchanging her and her mother's motive from the beginning. She wanted to become a star. She wanted to be like her mother, also an actress. With what Polanski had done for Kinski there was a sure bet that he could pull strings for her. However, the guy who Gailey asked would represent little Sammy, refused. So they had to get Polanski another way. The sex was the ace-in-the-hole. And Sammy then turned on the acting lessons she no doubt learned from mommy.

The ones responsible for the train leaving the door are Susan Gailey and Samantha Geimer. To not put the blame squarely on them is to say that they have no responsibility whatsoever.

Mia said...

Not all of those sound like lies to me for reasons already given by Leigh and others however for the ones that might be I would suggest you read the When Rape Victims Lie by the blogger Sasha which explains why people sometimes lie after being raped and how it does not mean they were not raped.

Jean said...

No, it doesn’t mean they were not raped. It doesn’t mean they were raped, either, - until other circumstances are taken into account. Such as evidence, for example. Or the total absence thereof.

You may or may not have noticed that this is Chapter 5; thus, there are 4 more chapters before this (and quite a few after). I would suggest you going back and [re]reading the main body of argumentation, the cited documents first of all. In a nutshell, that’s what the situation is like:

1. Medical examination doesn’t find any trace of forcible penetration, anal or vaginal.
2. Medical examination doesn’t find any trace of any penetration at all, anal or vaginal.
3. Dr.Larson testifies that it is sometimes possible not to find any trace of intercourse UNLESS it is forcible. (In other words – I know that the “unless” part confuses some readers – that in the present case the intercourse was NOT forcible)
4. After a thorough investigation the probation department (whose report is the only document of the case that gives an official conclusion) unambiguously states consent.

There are more facts, equally irrefutable (including the Gailey’s lame attempt to forge the evidence, which alone reduces their credibility to zero), analyzed in the other chapters, but even this brief summary should do.

And now you’re trying to tell me there still was, or could be, “rape”, only because “people sometimes lie”?... Sorry Mia, this argument is dramatically impotent and, if anything, only further incriminates the perjuring Gaileys.

Gobsmacked said...

What part of ~13 years old~ is confusing to you? She was a child and Polanski knew that. He gave her drugs, alcohol and had sex with her. It's simple. 44 year old men should not have sex with 13 year old girls. His glorious creativity does not change that fact. And I would venture to say she wasn't the first nor the last. If you have children look at one of them right now and ask yourself this question, "If an adult did to my child what Polanski did to Samantha Geimer would it matter one whit to me how CREATIVE the molester was?????

Jean said...

I don’t really think Gobsmacked needs a reply to his/her comment – obviously, s/he hasn’t read, and is not intending to read, the documents I have collected and analyzed. I want, however, draw my other reader’s attention to how the old ignorant lies have reappeared in his/her comment:

“She was a child” – She was a physically mature young woman with previous sexual experience (see Chapters 2 and 3, the Grand Jury testimonies, medical examination report, witnesses’ reports, photos).

“He gave her drugs, alcohol <…>” – No, he did not (see Chapter 2 and the Grand Jury testimonies).

“…and had sex with her” – and she had sex with him (see Chapter 2 and the conclusion of the probation department, officially confirming that the intercourse was consensual).

“If an adult did to my child what Polanski did to Samantha Geimer…” – He did not “do” anything to her. She had consensual sex with him, as she had had with men before him.

“…would it matter one whit to me how CREATIVE the molester was?” – funny, isn’t it? Where among my arguments did that person find “creativity”? How come consensual sex with an experienced “adult female” (as we remember, that’s how the medical examination report defines her) is suddenly “molestation”? Alas, Gobsmacked lives in the world of his/her own sick illusions…

Sometimes it is a good idea to read the material one is commenting on, to avoid making a fool of oneself…

Gobsmacked said...

Jean said...
"I don’t really think Gobsmacked needs a reply to his/her comment"

Then why did you respond Jean?

Why are you so intent on refusing to hold Roman Polanski responsible for his actions? He was an adult who made the choice to be inappropriate in several ways with a child. It doesn't matter what she did or did not do with whoever. Even if she were a prostitute, he is the issue, not the child. Again, what about LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT do you find confusing? It is the obligation of adults to protect children, not take advantage of them. That's why we have laws and why adults are expected to abide by them. Again, this situation is about the choices of a 44 year old man, not the sexual history of a 13 year old girl. It was wrong of him to do any way you slice or dice it.

You may minimize my position all you like, but I think I would find nearly unanimous legal and moral consensus for it among the population of the US. Can you? Debating any other issue apart from her age at the time is irrelevant. I know how old she was. I know how old he was. In the United States 13 year old children cannot legally give consent to have sex. Case closed. Not to mention morally. He should have known better. She was child.

Елена Прошина said...

Jean has explained why he replied. You should be more attentive. It is interesting for us, his readers, to see once again how people reproduce the same patterns of fact distortion.

Also, he never said that what Mr.Polanski did wasn’t illegal in the United States. All he wants is people to keep to the facts. In your first comment, you distorted the facts, and in your second, you ascribed to him things he never said. I think it would help if you read the whole of this research, it is really good and informative. You keep missing the point.

I’ve always wondered if people in the USA really don’t see difference between molesting a child and having sex with an underage prostitute. This approach seems to me highly immoral. Probably, it’s the matter of cultural differences.

Anonymous said...

Polanski should have paid someone to bust a cap on this gold digger the moment it got out

Nettie said...

There was no evidence that intercourse took place but they had consensual sex? How do we know if there is no evidence? A 13 year old is still a child even if she is sexually active. Does saying she's sexually mature make it okay to have sex with someone who is 13?

Nettie said...

If there was no evidence they had sex then how do we know they did? If a 13 year old is sexually mature then it's okay to have sex with them?