Samantha Geimer: Fool Me Twice

Note: Before you read the article below, please get acquainted with the documented facts of the case in the main part of this blog.

Ms.Geimer is writing a book. A “tell-all memoir” called The Girl: Emerging from the Shadow of Roman Polanski. The woman who always insisted that her main desire was to be left alone and allowed to live her own life (which never prevented her, though, from appearing on television or giving interviews), finally forgot what she had said whenever she’d been asked if she intended to make a buck this way, and got on with it. But we’ve already seen how faulty her memory is whenever it suits her.

Moreover. In Geimer’s 2010 Larry King interview, Silver, her lawyer, who was there, said that Polanski’s own memoir, Roman by Polanski was, according to Geimer, “an attempt to exploit the events for money.”

Brilliant. So, a memoir of a man whose life is an action-packed novel in itself, who’s contributed a lot to the world’s culture, and whose every word, thus, would have been interesting to the reading public even if Samantha had never been born – is “an attempt to exploit the events”. As if he didn’t have other events in his life. “For money,” too – this is, evidently, how actively working film directors make their living. While her own book, of course, is nothing like that. Not an attempt to exploit the events. Not for money, either.

Delia Lloyd, in Washington Post, deplores this fact: “...I can’t help wishing that she wouldn’t tell her story… I fear that there is no way that this story will end well for her. Even if she intends for her book to clear her name… Geimer herself – not to mention her mother – will be scrutinized six ways to Sunday as we proudly extol her braveness and voice even while pouring over the prurient details of exactly what happened that day 35 years ago...

One should really feel sorry for poor Samantha. Indeed: you make a false rape accusation 35 years ago, and in spite of all lies your supporters have been spreading, there still will be some people who, alas, can read and think. If she had only kept her mouth shut all this time, or at least if she didn’t try her best to stay in the limelight, she would make it much easier for her defenders to create and maintain the image of a holy, innocent "victim". Alas, whenever she opens her mouth (amazingly often), she puts her foot in it, as we’ve seen here.

But dishonest journalists are not abashed. Now, in addition to all the old lies they’ve been poisoning the public with for decades, they’ve managed to invent some new ones. Let’s have a look.

In all the articles that have appeared since Geimer voiced her historical decision to capitalize on the event once again, the old lies resurrect, like zombies in a horror movie, as if nobody has ever had any access to the documents of the case.

Of course, everyone screams “drugged and raped”. Goes without saying. Many, like, make it the title of their articles: Former Teenager Who Was Raped By Roman Polanski Is Writing a Memoir, that’s how Katie J.M. Baker has chosen to call her article, in which she upbraids the Associated Press:
The 13-year-old who Roman Polanski raped — hey, people/Associated Press, let's remember he was not "convicted of having sex with" her…(Associated Press, you see, had the temerity to start their article as follows: “The former teen whom Roman Polanski was convicted of having sex with”)

Yes, Baker, “having sex” is the only thing he was charged with after the other charges were disproved and dropped as unsubstantiated fantasies. But the truth won’t do for such as Baker, and she goes on:

“…but convicted of forcing a young teenager to have oral, anal, and vaginal sex with him…”

I wonder if Baker ever heard that slander is a crime. As we know from the documents, “forcing” was never ever present even among the initial charges. The conclusion of the investigation clearly states consent. “Anal sex” charge was refuted by the medical examination, “oral sex” amounts to Gailey’s vague statement that “he put his mouth on my vagina” (while she was sitting on the couch with her panties on), of which the Grand Jury didn’t even bother to clarify the details. No shame, eh, Baker? Care to disclose your sources? Any documents where he was “convicted” of what you shamelessly state he was?

Baker doesn’t have to be angry with Associated Press, though. A lot of media (for example Green Bay Press Gazette) reprint their article Samantha Geimer, Roman Polanski’s Sex Victim, Writing a Memoir, written by Hillel Italie (AP National Writer), and only Yahoo News had enough decency to retain only the parts of the article that make sense (always assuming they haven't edited it since I last read it), while others reprint it whole, with all the fact twisting.

Polanski was accused of plying Geimer with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a 1977 modeling shoot at Jack Nicholson's house and raping her.”

Saying this without mentioning that those charges were dropped is as dishonest -  although subtler - as doing what we’ve just seen Baker do.

He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.”

Same as the above: “initially indicted” and “convicted” are quite different things… but wait, guys! There’s something really precious here. 

Lately – I first noticed it a couple years ago – the media added another foul trick to their collection. All of a sudden, everyone started listing “child molesting” among the initial counts.

There never was any “child molesting” count. Ever. “Rape by use of drugs” was, just as “sodomy”, basing on the initial complaint (that is, on the bare words of the accuser); it’s only later, after the investigation, that they had to be dropped. But “child molesting” didn’t even occur to anyone: Ms.Gailey did not, in anyone’s eyes, qualify as a “child”. People were not blind: perfectly mature and sexually experienced, that’s how they saw her, “adult female” being the definition given in her medical examination report. 

Including a count that never existed is disgusting and very dangerous. It’s being done for the same reason as invariably attaching the infamous black-and-white photo (the one with the books), the photo that was made long before the events, by a professional photographer who had nothing to do with the case or with Polanski. They are trying to implant in the minds of the reading public a totally different - from the reality - image of Gailey – namely, that of a “child victim”.

And to prop it up, they have invented a new, subtler trick. I’ve already expressed my doubts concerning the independence of American/British press, and now my worst suspicions are confirmed. All of a sudden, as if by a miracle, in all recent articles, Geimer became two (or three) years younger than she actually is.

Samantha Geimer, who was 13 at the time and is now 47 (Guardian)
Samantha Geimer, now 47 (AP)
Geimer, now 47 (Washington Post) now 47 (

etc. Now, by what stretch of imagination can she be 47? If what the Gaileys said to the Grand Jury was true – although the only thing to confirm it was a copy of the birth certificate (they never produced the original) – then she was born on March 30, 1963, which makes her 49. If, on the other hand, the data provided by is correct, and her birthday is Sept 1, 1962 (which is corroborated by her outstanding maturity and by the fact that she was a student of the 9th grade at the time in question), she is 50.

Why these lies, apparently useless?

As we’ve already seen, there’s no such thing as harmless lies in our case. When a reader sees the figure, s/he makes a mental calculation, and comes up with Samantha’s age on the day of “rape” as 12 or even 11 – as opposed to two weeks shy of 14 (or, if we believe, 14 and a half). Many of the articles don’t specify how old she was in ’77, only say she was a “minor”, thus letting the readers fantasize to their heart’s content. Strengthened by the lie about the “child molesting” count and the photo made when she was so much younger, it becomes really impressive.

Besides this innovation, they have come up with another elegant hocus-pocus.
Delia Lloyd, of Washington Post, - the very one whose lamentations we started our analysis with – writes at the beginning of her article:  This time, however, our cultural re-connection with Monsieur Polanski comes in the form of news that the then-13-year-old girl whom he drugged and raped in Jack Nicholson’s home all those years ago is publishing a memoir to tell her side of the story.” 

The line that I underlined provides a link. Apparently, one doesn’t accuse someone of such horrible crimes without proofs. The link must give us a valid source.

Well, what could this valid source be? We know that it can’t be a document – we’ve seen them all, and we know that there never was any “drugging” or “raping”. OK, out of curiosity, let’s follow the link… Et voilà! 
What we see is Eleanor Clift’s article, Roman Polanski: A Free Man, but How's His Conscience? Another, older, article, as full of falsehoods as the Lloyd’s one! 

Polanski was initially indicted on six felony counts, including child molesting and drug-induced rape,” Clift says. See “child molesting” again? And, of course, the conclusion of the article goes:   

Film director Roman Polanski finally beat the rap, after years of legal wrangling, for drugging a 13-year-old girl then raping her during a modeling shoot in 1977.”
Not a single mention of the result of the investigation, of the medical examination, of the expert’s testimony – nothing! As if the initial charges made any sense, which they did not, - not when confronted with the facts and the testimonies.

Perfect. One liar backs up another liar. One set of lies is confirmed by another. But they must have calculated the effect: the reader is led to believe that Lloyd is quoting a reliable source, so her own dirty slander (“drugged and raped”) acquire verisimilitude.

Fool you once, dear reader, shame on the media. Fool you twice, shame on you.

They are fooling you, shamelessly, brazenly. Every word they say can be refuted, starting with Geimer’s age and finishing with “drugged and raped”. If you allow them to – shame on you: they are only doing their dirty, but well-paid job. Lloyd is playing on your best feelings (“…she was not party to a consensual affair with an older man, but the victim of child rape”), knowing that “child rape” phrase will cause immediate gut reaction, although “consensual affair with an older man” is the only thing that we can see in the documents. But people do not go and verify the lies they are told. Not after they’ve been shocked by “child rape”. Not after that horror was “confirmed by a source” – that is, by another set of the same lies.
Fooling you – constantly, relentlessly, in every word – is the only thing they’ve been doing all those years.

Here’s another lie they are trying to make you believe:

Even if she intends for her book to clear her name, once and for all, I imagine that all it will do is harden those who believe that Polanski is an extremely talented film-maker who was himself the victim of a legal circus (both true) and those who will forever wish to see him behind bars for raping a child and getting away with it (also true). (Lloyd)
Regardless of what she has to say, people will probably continue to talk about how it's all cool because Polanski is really good at making movies and it was, like, so long ago. (Baker)

No, this time I don’t only mean the “raping a child and getting away with it” part, which is an obvious, tired lie.  But look what they do: they are trying to make it sound – again! – as if we, Polanski’s defenders, have nothing to say except “he is a talented film-maker” or a “victim of a legal circus”, or “it was long ago”. They are trying to make you believe that there are no documents stating no rape, no drugging, stating consent and maturity of Geimer. To make you believe there are some other documents – the ones they never ever quote because those do not exist. Shame on them – and shame on you if you take their word, which is nothing but lies.

And now the funny part.

For years, Geimer chose to remain silent on the subject of the crime that was committed against her all those years ago,” Lloyd suddenly declares.

No shit? So, her repeated presence at Larry King’s show, her “Good Morning, America!” appearance, her numerous interviews to American television, her part in “Wanted and Desired” were all mass hallucination? Guys, she’s taking you for total dupes.

After saying that incredible thing, Lloyd is trying to qualify: 

 Although she long ago acknowledged that she was the “girl” in the Polanski scandal, and subsequently sued Polanski, agreeing to a settlement, she has publicly said that she forgave the Polish-born director and supported his efforts across the years to dismiss the case against him.”

Yes, and? What do you want the public to believe this time? That Geimer hasn’t been working her head off to stay in the focus of attention? That she isn’t a gold digger? Obviously, Lloyd and her likes are trying to re-create Geimer’s image: they are going to try and make you forget how she has already pumped her life’s only significant event dry. Thus, they want to make you believe that the coming book is not a crowning achievement of this gold rush, but a confession of someone who stoically “chose to remain silent for years”. How can such a confession – of such a person! – be disbelieved?

And another thing, of course. The sooner you forget her public appearances, the less risk that you will ever analyze her conflicting statements and outward lies, as we did here. The more hope, too, that you will forget what she actually said about “the crime that was committed against her”:

It was just sex.
(Geimer’s 2010 interview to Larry King)

And now let’s once again see the names of those dishonest liars. Yes, I know, their name is legion, and we’ve already been acquainted with many of them here; but let’s at least have a look at those whose falsehoods were analyzed in the present article:

Delia Lloyd
Hillel Italie
Katie J.M. Baker
Eleanor Clift

It’s them – and their likes – who don’t only persecute a man for their own gain, financial or political. They are committing a number of crimes, among which: undermining the credibility of media as a concept; abusing the right to free speech; and, worst of all, trivializing child rape, making you believe that what happened to that woman (yes, please, look at these pictures again), - sexually experienced, willing, and defined as “adult female”, her “just sex”, as she put it herself, - is in any way comparable to the tragedy of the innocent children who are actually raped. Doing so, those writers spit in the face of all genuine victims of rape – and, foulest of all, of child rape

If you let them fool you once again, dear reader… 

…shame on you.



Nica said...

Isn't this weird? A girl, who "just had sex" is now writing a novel about it? Was it so good she does not want to forget about it? Sorry, bad jokes, but I am actually pretty angry about it.

But I still think this is sick and feel sorry for people who actually believe in this so-called "rape" and "child abuse".

Some of us wants to be fooled and they found a person to blame (just for everything). They see themselves as better people, compated to Polanski.

Jean said...

Thank you Nica. What you said sums it up perfectly.

Brice Beede said...

Main points:

1) How is it that brices missed that bear's blog is totally devoted to Polanski even when bears have linked brices to it before and I have read quite a bit of it.

2)I am most saddened by the fact that it is already decided...already certain that Polanski is guilty...that he just got away with it. I mean the total character assasination by this "lady", the media, our government have closed the case in most people's minds to the point where no amount of mere evidince could make him innocent. The messiah could show up with all the angels (you know I'm no believer) and testify that this man is guilty of nothing more repulsive than a lack of good judgement and still the case is closed forever in most people's minds. He is guilty because most don't want to let mere evidence get in the way of the sordid tabloid impression they've already decided is the truth.

3. Was Mr. Nicholson charged with nothing? I mean considering at least some of this vile crime happened at his house by our laws shouldn't there have at least been charges of some kind against him?

4. One does not moderate brice's comments. :P

Jean said...

>>How is it that brices missed that bear's blog is totally devoted to Polanski <…>
How indeed? As I said, it’s the bear’s Dark Tower… Bears are pretty single-minded, you see.

>>Was Mr. Nicholson charged with nothing?

No, he wasn’t. Moreover, the following people were never charge with anything, either:
- Elena Kalliniotes, although she drank champagne with Ms.Gailey;
- Mother Gailey wasn’t charged, although she connived at her daughters drinking, taking Quaaludes and having illegal sex;
- Ms.Gailey’s sex partners, although she had already been sexually experienced, both per medical examination, her own testimony and her later statements (one of them goes, she had been “sexually active for a long time”);
- Ms.Gailey herself (it would seem that “unlawful sex” were illegal for both parties involved. Although, of course, she could always cry rape concerning all her previous experiences);
- None of the writers and journalists who, contrary to all recorded evidence and everyone’s statements, invent (like Kiernan or Reisman) horror stories about brutal forcible rape, involving Gailey’s convulsions, bladder incontinence, loss of consciousness, etc;
- The Gaileys who presented, as their sole “evidence”, panties stained with semen that, according the expert’s testimony, belonged to a sterile man. I’ve never seen a document which showed that someone asked them a single question about it.

>> <…>The messiah could show up with all the angels (you know I'm no believer) and testify that this man is guilty of nothing more repulsive than a lack of good judgment and still the case is closed forever in most people's minds. <…>

Oh yes. I think the first time I realized it was at our site, with Ruthful. It fully prepared me for everything I’ve had to deal with since, at imdb, FB, newspaper sites, blogs etc. I extensively analyze it here:

I just don’t let myself be discouraged. First, it’s as the old French saying goes, Fais ce que tu dois, advienne que pourra. Next, in those two years I’ve seen people who haven’t relinquished their right to thinking – many of the comments right here, on my blog, and elsewhere, show it.

Now the most dangerous thing is that they are trying to spread this foul myth all over Europe, France including. I will translate all this into French and work with French sites as well, but it’s a shit ton of work ahead…

>> One does not moderate brice's comments. :P

Brice is always welcome to post!!! Thank you a HUGE LOT!!!

DoctorDodge said...

Great. More reason for me to ignore the news, the papers, and indeed, humanity in general. Almost impressive how these journalists use not just lies but sheer implication to tell not just a story but put an opinion into people's minds, if it weren't so fucking disgusting. Anyway, another great and informative blog, Jean.

Jean said...

>>Almost impressive how these journalists use not just lies but sheer implication to tell not just a story but put an opinion into people's minds, if it weren't so fucking disgusting.

Perfectly stated, thank you Doctor!

DavidEhrenstein said...

Dear Jean

I have read Geimer's book which was written in collaboration with her lawyer Lawrence Silver and one Judith Newman. As you can well imagine it's all over the map and should keep this site bust for some time. I'm writing a piece about it for the "Los Angeles Review of Books." The timing of the book's release is most interesting as Polanski's latest film Venus in Furs will be in theaters mid-September. It's an adaptation of a play about casting a theatrical adaptation of the Sacher-Masoch classic and stars Mathieu Almeric and Mrs. Polanski.

DavidEhrenstein said...

Well the "Los Angeles Review of Books" has up and cancelled my review of Geimer's book.

I shall try to have it placed elsewhere.

Jean said...

I am not surprised in the least. As usual, they have everything set up in advance, including the reviews AND public opinion.

And, David... if your review contains any aspects of the truth that is so unpleasant to them all, I am afraid you have no chance to publish it in the USA.

DavidEhrenstein said...

We'll see. I have a few ideas and will keep you posted.

DavidEhrenstein said...


"Variety" is of course grandstanding.

DavidEhrenstein said...

The Girl Can Help It My two cents on Roman Polanski and Samantha Geimer.

Jean said...

Thank you David! It's a brilliant review, and I have left my comment at the Fandor site. What you've done is awesome. Please, please stay in touch!

DavidEhrenstein said...

I shall do so. Merci!

DavidEhrenstein said...

Here's a brand new interview in which she's starting to sound quite reasonable. Time, apparently heals all self-inflicted wounds.

Jean said...

Thanks a HUGE lot!

It's maddening how, while she keeps telling at least HALF of the truth, the media still refer to it as "rape". Very clever indeed: people don't have to read the entire interview, the "Rape" in the title is quite enough to form the public opinion, lest the pre-formed picture be in any way damaged by what Geimer actually says.

Also interesting how, in front of an interviewer, she can't help clinging to at least some of the old lies, like, he "offered" her Quaalude, which he, as we know, never did; or that at some point she "said no", although we already saw in her memoirs that crucial question, "Why DIDN'T I say 'no'?"

There is a lot more to say about all this; I will try to analyze all the new revelations, half-truths and lies both old and new, in a new article some time (hopefully) soon. I wish I had the book now, but I don't know where to get it at the moment.

Lots of thanks!

Dianne (Samskara) said...


Once again, a masterpiece worthy of Polanski himself. I think that the essence of your work is truth for truth's sake. I'm proud to read what you've said over and over about this case with the clarity you present. Bravo!!!!! I'm still debating whether to buy the book now or wait till it's available on the bargain books table for $5.00 Canadian. This comes on the heels of another slanderous work called "Restless Souls" by Alisa Statman (female partner of Sharon's sister Patti) and Patti's daughter Brie where they restate the things we know of Roman's infidelity to Sharon. Seriously, I'd like to ask when the open season on Roman stops!

Did you note in a recent interview Samantha admits she emails Roman? How nice. She continues muddying Roman's reputation, but on the other hand still wants to cling to her fantasy that she actually meant something to him. Considering the ugly house frau she is now and looking at how stunning Emmanuelle is, I'm afraid this is all Samantha will have to cling to in about forty years. I for one don't still want to think of my rapist...but c'est la vie.

Carry on the good work Jean. This Canadian Beaver (no pun intended) is proud of the Russian Bear. Thanks on behalf of REAL rape victims.

Jean said...

Dear Dianne,
Can never thank you enough for your support!
Now incredible things are happening. I haven’t been able to get the book itself yet, but David Ehrenstein in his article (link in his comment above) quotes from it:

“I never thought he wanted to hurt me; he wanted me to enjoy it.”
“I did not want him to think of me as a child.”
“Why don’t I say ‘No’? Why don’t I say ‘Don’t touch me’?”
“He’s kissing my face and feeling my breasts and he asks me again if I like it, does it feel good. I say nothing but he’s a guy who makes movies so I imagine he’s filling in the dialogue for himself... Then he goes down on me... I know what this is because I’ve read about it but have never actually had someone do it to me. He asks if it feels good, which it does—and that in itself is awful... my mind recoils but my body is betraying me. And that’s when I check out... he is trying to make it nice for me I know. But I don’t fight. Why fight? All he wants to do is have an orgasm... It’s just sex, he doesn’t want to hurt me... We are both playing our parts.”
Thus, we learn that in fact she never said “No” (as we knew all along), and actually enjoyed the process. Moreover, in a recent interview to Spiegel (link in another David’s comment above – again, thank you David!) she says a lot of things to the same effect, among which:
“I wasn't raised with that strange sense of shame. Sex wasn't evil. I knew what sex was. No one had ever drummed it into my head that sex was dirty or shameful. Besides, I wasn't afraid for my life. I wasn't afraid that he would hurt me.”
So, now she confirms that there was nothing to fear and that she wasn’t afraid. There are many more things she at last confesses, according to both sources; I will analyze all this in my next blog entry.
And now the punchline: all media pretend that she never said anything like this! ALL titles of ALL media articles contain the word “rape”. ALL the articles repeat ALL the old lies (and, as usual, invent some new ones), as if she never said a word.
Their aim is clear: to make the readers believe that their shameless lies is exactly what Geimer wrote in her book. They quite something irrelevant, or something that needs interpretation, and then pour all their slander, making the reader believe that now as it is “confirmed” by the quote, the rest of the book says what they read in the article.
I expected something like this, but maybe something not as shameless. I will write about all this soon. I wish I had the book now, though.

A Princesa dos Sonhos said...

I really feel sorry for you who defend Polanski. Anything is a reason to say that she lied. NO. She was 13 years ago, and she didn't lie. He's a bastard. Read her book and after defend him. I feel sorry for you, and i'm scared about you stupidity. Shut up and delect this stupid blog. Look to google. She was a child just a child. You're so ridiculous and sick like Polanski.

Jean said...

Thank you very much for your profound comment. Of course no document I’ve quoted and analyzed in my research can withstand your brilliant criticism. The conclusion of the probation department, the experts’ findings, the medical examination results, the witnesses’ accounts – nothing matters if you say it doesn’t! Also, in my stupidity that you so shrewdly descried, I thought that if statements made by one person are in direct contradiction with one another, at least some of them must be lies. Now I know that they must be all true! I succumb to your superb logic, and from now on will rely on googled rants instead of the genuine documents I, in my regrettable stupidity, had been examining before you opened my eyes.

P.S. To all my readers with normal (as opposed to Princesa’s outstanding) mental capacity: I have Geimer’s book now, so expect a new article soon!