Monday, September 28, 2009

[samantha geimer] why is no one listening to her

To blog on the Polanski thing is fraught because the vultures are waiting to construe any sort of interest in it in a certain way. Nevertheless, strategically, it is of real interest and it seems to be for others too who've been looking at what the tactics were in his move:

But it could also elevate his case into an international ordeal -- involving the governments of Switzerland, France, Poland and the United States -- and potentially complicate his possible extradition.

"The big issue is whether it would have been better for him to negotiate a surrender when he had the chance," Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson said. "Now it has become an international incident and the district attorney may be under pressure not to negotiate a sweetheart deal. They've gone to all this trouble of getting Switzerland involved. It could make it harder on him."

Nevertheless, some believe the arrest of the 76-year-old Academy Award winner could lead to a resolution that will allow him to once again travel freely.

There seem, to me, two things involved here. One is the feeling that the man is a sleaze who needs to be brought to justice, no matter what it takes and whatever laws are bent to achieve it. France doesn't have an extradition treaty and the Americans were frustrated but even so, the tone the woman official adopts leaves one a bit suspicious and concerned about the motives for pursuing Polanski. This smacks awfully of another feminist vendetta:

Previous attempts to nab Polanski when he left France were thwarted because authorities didn't learn of his travel soon enough -- or Polanski didn't make the trip, said William Sorukas, chief of the U.S. Marshals Service's domestic investigations branch.

"This is not the first time we have done this over the years," said Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office. She said warrants had been sent out whenever rumors circulated that he would be traveling to a country outside France.

In this case, the honor for Polanski's work proved to be his downfall, Gibbons said. "It was publicized on the Internet that he was going to be at the Zurich Film Festival," Gibbons said. "They were selling tickets online."

"This is not the first time we have done this over the years ..." No doubt, no doubt. You see, there are other issues involved, even the gender issue, very keenly felt by many males and obviously by females. One of the women bloggers in the Britblog Roundup even states on her site that she wants no anti-feminists there and "any anti-feminist thoughts will be deleted".

WTF? Does she want any discussion at all or just to push her agenda? If she wishes to push her agenda, who's going to read it? Other feminists? How is she going to convince the men to relinquish their oppressive power and make them feel more kindly towards her, with statements like that on her blog?

You see the problem here with this Polanski thing?

The second issue is the resentment among European nations of the Americans trying to push their agendas onto the rest of the world and this is a very great resentment, sorry to my American friends. There is a tendency for European nations to try to bloc anything the American's want, irrespective of how worthy it is and the very fact that this matter might become international shows the depth of the political feeling:

Meanwhile, Polanski’s arrest looked set to spark a diplomatic row. Frederic Mitterand, the French culture minister, said he was “deeply shocked” by the sudden arrest and had already discussed the matter with President Sarkozy.

The snubbing of Gordon Brown by Obama is a case in point. If you read my blog and any other centrist Britblog on the net, all are scathing of Brown and some want to see him hung at Tyburn Hill but ... but ... but ... there is also the contrary tendency to support Brown in this matter against the Americans.

This is why America is finding it so difficult abroad, why they can't understand why no one gets behind the Yoo Ess of Ay and backs them. Look, there's a lot of jealousy, a lot of protecting one's own patch, a lot of equal ego. Britain is a once mighty nation which is struggling to come to terms with its place and its place is not, in most Brits' minds, kowtowing to Obama.

Myself, I don't feel this. This blog is read half by Brits, half by Americans by and large and sometimes I feel quite American in my mindset. American, yes but not American government, a point made by people like Xlbrl. In this Polanski matter, there's a can of worms to be opened, far more extensive than just the incident itself, which is severely weakened by Samantha Geimer's own exhortations to leave him alone.

Sleazes shouldn't get away with it. Full stop. Period. Sleazes with moneyed connections should especially not get away with it. However, this issue has other overtones and all players in it need to recognize that.

Now, finally, let's get down to the other issue which heads up this blog. Why is no one listening to Samantha Geimer? Feminists make a big noise about the woman being heard, being listened to, her opinions being considered. OK, I'm considering Samantha Geimer's opinion, the so-called victim. I say "so-called" because she clearly doesn't see herself this way.

Geimer's opinion:

1. In a 2003 interview, Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us." Furthermore, "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it".

2. In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever - besides me - and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."

3. That same month, [January, 2009], Samantha Geimer filed to have the charges against Polanski dismissed from court, saying that decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor's focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family."

Now, the U.S. authorities, the feminists, Polansky's side and just about everyone else I've read, don't give a toss about that. They have their agenda, their slant on how things should be, that is that and to hell with any trauma for the victim, the very thing they're trying to avenge.

My stance is that a woman of 45 is competent to decide for herself and my resentment is that others seem to want to impose their own will on her.

In my opinion, the victim's wishes are paramount.


alison said...

Even the man who allowed this to happen in his house (Jack Nicholson) is STILL feted as some kid of kindly sweet fun lothario. Men's mags constantly hold Nicholson up as some kind of masculine hero. How would we deal with it if a woman who allowed a rape or abuse to happen under her nose to occur were feted in such a way? She wouldn't be is the answer. Society would be rightly vicious and demanding. So WHY do we fete people like Mr Nicholson?

The man is a sleaze James? The man is a CRIMINAL. Even the woman he abused has made it clear the justice system failed her so badly she no longer wants the issue to be pursued as it will destroy her own family now because it is all too little too late. It's tragic. She was a child. She was abused and this man is merely a sleaze and his vile friends are all heroes.

It is not the feminists I have an issue with anymore. I used to ignore them. And revile them. Now I find myself increasingly drawn to their "agendas" because of the way we handle stuff here. Yes I see feminists are defensively hunkering down for a battle on this one but quite hionestly how am I to take the issue of unfairness respective of men and sexual matters seriously when daily in the blogosphere we see issues treated with almost a kind of resentful contempt by men.

You recall when you posted about teen porn here re a girl older even than Polanskis victim. Not one man voiced an opinion or his disgust. Is it any wonder we should rely on feminists to highlight the injustice and hypocrisy of the Polanski case?

Maybe I relate because I don't see it as feminism. The Furies.

Always female and dating back to the Age of Myth, the Furies were the agents of Nemesis.

dearieme said...

"In my opinion, the victim's wishes are paramount." Would you say so if she had opined that they should bring him to the US and cut his balls off?

Anonymous said...

I don't think it's an US vs Europe thing. It's because he's such a great film maker, one who escaped the Nazis and had his wife and unborn son killed by a mad sect.

Then of course there were serious failings with his trial.

The sooner he gets this whole episode sorted out, the better.

alison said...

I should add that my comments context is made on the basis that we either treat paedos seriously or we don't when we know of them. A number of other child victims have made full recoveries including two girls aged 8 or 9 when they were taken or abused. Hardly the point. Many people recover from criminal trauma and want to put it behind them. Saying "oh sorry" is not an option if we wish to protect future children. Especially not simply because the victim wishes to avoid the glare of publicity because this man is famous and the case has humiliated her precisely by being late in justice. The fact is it is being 'dressed up' as 'revenge' or an avengeful act now because it was not handled correctly at the time. Infuriating.

Lord Nazh said...

Why in the world would the victims now changed opinion (after payment no less) have anything to do with the fact that Polanski anally-raped a 13-year old girl and pled guilty to it before fleeing the country?

as you say Full Stop

James Higham said...

This is the reason I asked Alison to come over and comment. I want to know because I'm not sure which way o jump on this.

OK, my post says the woman should be heard and I still agree with that but I see Dearieme, Ordo's [Simon] and Nazh's points too.

My mate here says the US forces flights down where they have jurisdiction and then arrest people, which is wrong.

This one needs thinking through.

Lord Nazh said...

Remember James, the man pled GUILTY to the crime, it isn't a matter of him fleeing a trial or anything, he fled prison.

'My mate here says' is a hell of a way to source something no?

James Higham said...

That's fair enough, m'lord - he just happens to be two metres away and said it now. I was throwing all opinions in.

alison said...

Over on some entertainment websites they are dismissive of the case as “whatever” and all cooing graphically over the pictures of the thirteen year old girl. In France they think this is a non issue because he is a “talented” man, a libertine. A mere lothario to be indulged like his buddies in that entire industry.

I'm sorry but when it comes to immediate reactions to this issue I cannot first find fault with the feminists on this issue James. Granted they should let anyone speak on the matter and I plan on doing just that (new blog) but reading those entertainment sites and how the man is virtually congratulated makes my stomach turn.

I expected your angle on this story to be why should a privileged man get away with a crime an ordinary man would not get away with in a million years. It’s one rule for Hollywood libertines and another for the ordinary man running his kids to school.

alison said...

Oh and thanks for inviting me over. Makes me feel dead smart :D

jams o donnell said...

The bottom line in all of this is that he plied a thirteen year old with drugs and alcohol, then had sex with her.

He may be a fine director but that does not detract from the fact that he had sex with a 13 year old. His artistic talent does not excuse his act

He certainly has had a hard time of things - an appalling childhood thanks to the vermin of the Reich and the brutal murder of his wife nd unborn child. But he had sex with a 13 year old. These will have troubled him enormously ( a huge understatement) but they do not excuse

He pleaded guilty, but fled the US and has stayed in countries where he will not be extradited. These are the acts of a worm. Had it been anyone else I'm sure his supporters would have been baying for the paedo's blood

Geimer says he "He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it".

He did so literally. She sued him and he made an undisclosed settlement. Blood money does not constitute a punishment. I do appreciate her concerns, however.

Bottom line is that he fucked a child then did a runner. I could not give a damn if the man shits Picassos, he is still a piece of scum

Gracchi said...

Ultimately the law is important beyond the victim- because the law establishes a principle that you cannot get away with an awful crime without punishment. Polanski shoudl go to court- if found guilty he should serve the time allowed by the state for such a crime. I cannot see any other principle which maintains the rule of law and that protects us all male and female from all manner of dangers.

Ultimately I'm with Alison this has nothing to do with feminism (save insofar feminism is about protecting human dignity)- this is not about ideology- it is about the fundemental principle that crime is bad and criminals should pay the price for their crimes. It is as simple as that. Polanski I beleive has confessed, he should go to gaol.

xlbrl said...

The reason you are having a hard time with this, James, is that opposite truths are going to be in conflict.
We do not wish USG to pop on the other side of the earth with warrants over tax disputes thirty years later either, but they certainly will. Even as they are doing the right thing in this case, they will do the wrong thing with as much conviction. They will also not do the right thing for reasons of expediency when those occasions arise. So we are left with caution.

A "feminist" would not long be a feminist if she is willing to suffer debate. There is no group of tenured professors in America so remarkably lacking the skills to defend their positions as feminists--and bad positions are defended vigorously and skillfully all the time. But never feminism, because at the heart of it they understand they are weak. The best arguments for returning Polanski will not come from them.

BTW, I would be shocked if this episode in Polansi's life were an anomaly and not a habit.

James Higham said...

Jams, Tiberius and Xlbrl - all read and noted.

"I'm sorry but when it comes to immediate reactions to this issue I cannot first find fault with the feminists on this issue James."

Alison, one little thing - the feminists do NOT have a mortgage on feeling that something done to women is wrong. Witness Jams above. This is the untruth they have tried to foist on women - that only women care but it's just not true.

Lord Nazh said...

"Polanski shoudl go to court- if found guilty he should serve the time allowed by the state for such a crime."

Only thing I can say to this Gracchi is that Polanski is already guilty of this crime, he simply needs to be sentenced (he pled guilty to avoid more serious charges)

Buck said...

I don't see this event as a feminist episode either... it's a simple matter of crime and punishment. Polanski pleaded guilty, he should do the time. Justice served late is better than justice never served.

alison said...

James - I never said that they did? I simply said how I feel in response to your post specifically which raised the issue in relation to them. Witness the whole of Hollywood lauding this man. In particular the good old boys. Their hideousness takes priority over feminists in this debate given the strength and power of their feeling on the issue.

Lord T said...

I understood he pled guilty as part of a plea bargain which was reneged on.

I've heard of many innocents who have pled down a charge because the risk of being executed compares poorly to serving 10 years.

Personally, I think that he should face the courts but at the same time the US should send back to Europe all those who face similar charges there but will not get extradited because the US refuses to extradite its citizens.

Its the one sidedness that makes the US so popular abroad. One rule for them.

alison said...

'This is the untruth they have tried to foist on women - that only women care but it's just not true'

Hmmm. In the short time I have paid attention to feminists, having never bothered before really, I have to say I have never come across that

Two of the posts are written by men

Gracchi said...

Lord N- you are right, my mistake I'd forgotten about that but I think hte point is the same anyway, justice should take its course, and if you are found guilty, you should serve your time like anyone else whether you are a famous film director or a tramp!

Lord Nazh said...

True Gracchi; but I still have a problem with any prosecutor who lets a rapist plead down to stat rape

alison said...

Me too Lord Nazh. I hadn't realised that was the case here.

James Higham said...

Details are emerging and will probably emerg further. For example, I wsasn't aware she'd made money out of him. That does alter things. Seems a bit sordid all round really.

Lord Nazh said...

the latest over at Patterico's place, but read all his Polanski posts and you'll get all the sordid details.

(yes there was a lawsuit/settlement and the victim got a sum of money)

Moggs Tigerpaw said...

If Obama is actually really snubbing Gordon Brown instead of having trouble fitting him in to a schedule then it is probably something to do with "the purely Scottish matter" of a convicted mass murdering bomber being let out of jail when it was promised by the UK he would do his time,when it was promised by the UK he would do his time.

(Imagine if Myra Hindley had been serving her time in a US jail and they had let her out before she died. I can see the headlines now.)

A promise as good as the one promising a referendum...

And, maybe I am being a bit mean, but how do you define feminism and feminist ideas? Votes for women? Withought seeing the actual comments I notice some guys take a woman not being willing to be a doormat as snippy feminism. yes I know some women can be as bad the other way but it does not make the other not true or make it ok.

Yes Polanki is talented and yes he has had some real bad stuff happen to him.

I don't know the full circumstances and details of what happened but he did admit what he did. If he admitted it as part of a plea bargain and he didn't really do it then there is something wrong with the system. So It is reasonable to figure he was guilty but ran away to avoid the consequences.

Are you saying he has avoided it so long there ought to be some sort of statute of limitations on it?

Kristine said...

Well, thanks for being (from my point of view) only the second blogger on the internet willing to take the rational, nuanced view.

This is not about Polanski anymore. This is about American law - and the frightening prospect that Americans no longer know or care about our own legal system.

"He plead guilty!" Yes, he did, largely to spare the victim a trial, which would have been traumatic but in retrospect is nothing compared to the pain that she says the courts have caused her. People plead guilty for all sorts of reasons.

If he's brought back to the U.S., he could withdraw that plea and force a trial. Did people think of that?

If he's brought back to the U.S., before even considering his punishment the courts will have to sort through all the affidavits taken out against the original judge (including, I believe, a complaint by the victim herself, who has nothing good to say about the man), because the judge reneged on the plea agreement and bragged that he was going to bring TV cameras into the courtroom to sentence Polanski to life in prison. Life in prison, folks. Not only did Polanski run - the victim says that she doesn't blame him!

"People don't understand that the judge went back on his word. They don't know how unfairly we were all treated by the press. Talk about feeling violated! The media made that year a living hell and I've been trying to put it behind me ever since."

Then, the charge of rape could be dismissed - and because of the original judge's actions, the current presiding judge has said that could happen.

I wonder what all these people crying for Polanski's blood would think then. Would they learn a lesson about mistakenly thinking that the American legal system is about emotional satisfaction?

This could be a win-win situation for Polanski: come back and get the charge dismissed, or fight and get out of jail to return to France. Or, he could die in jail fighting this. The stakes seem pretty high for someone who is not a deposed murderous dictator allowed to emigrate to Hawaii (Ferdinand Marcos).

The point is, this is not about Polanski (and as you pointed out, it was never about the victim). This is about due process. Violating due process to "save the child" serves no one. Throwing innocent people in prison for "Satanic Ritual Abuse" served no one. Rushing to judgment on "child molestation" in cases that were ultimately overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct served no one, and ruined a lot of children's lives, to say nothing of their parents'.

People act like they were there at Jack Nicholson's house. No, people, we don't know what happened - we believe the victim, because she was young and Roman pleaded guilty. If he withdraws that plea, then he has a right to a jury trial of his peers who must assume him innocent until proven guilty. Did people think of that, or are they too busy pounding their chests?

These rights exist to protect us all, in case you become accused. (And I don't care how innocent you are - the judge can lie to you, and the police can lie to you. Always get a lawyer!)

The American legal system is not about truth and justice, but the adjudication of facts, the establishment of the level of doubt, the administration of appropriate punishment, and the prevention of "cruel and unusual" of same.

Lord Nazh said...

Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl... let that settle in Kristine.

It's always about justice.

I'd have to look it up, but I can't imagine he could withdraw his plea at the sentencing stage. Yes sentencing, not trial.

In a trial, all the sworn statements would be valid for the prosecution... it's hard to believe that anyone would think that the scumbag who anally raped a 13 year old would have a remote shot in hell of making it out of trial less than guilty.

And no the rape charge cannot be dismissed because the original judge went back on his word (ie the plea agreement). The most that could happen is the Polanski would be tried for rape, sodomy, forcible sex with a minor, etc instead of receiving sentence for statutory rape (one of the sweetest plea deals ever done).

Your rebuttal seems to be that since the 'American' system is not about truth and justice, that its simply ok to forget about the FACT that Polanski Drugged and Raped (anally) a 13 year old Girl...

Kristine said...

Yes, Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, then pled guilty to spare her a trial. And everyone would have been better off had the original plea deal been stuck to by the judge, instead of him suddenly stating that he was going to allow TV cameras in the courtroom to capture him sentencing Polanski to life in prison.

That's why Polanski ran, the victim says she understands why Polanski ran, and numerous people filed affidavits against this judge for misconduct, including the victim.

Let that settle in, Lord Nazh. Don't get self-righteous with me. I also tried to pursue my own case in the legal system. I don't like the ugly sight of nonvictims who don't know what they're talking about lecturing victims who do, so STFU already!

You're also wrong about the plea deal. A defendant can have a guilty plea set aside even after sentencing. Check out State of Wisconsin v. Robert Johnson, case number 95-0072-CR. If you're having trouble here's the link:

Get some education. As a victim myself I learned not to confuse what's right with what is legal. Your hysteria nothwitstanding, you don't care about the victim any more than the rest of this lynch mob. But if Polanski withdraws the plea, it will be Polanski allegedly drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl. Got that?

You're welcome.

Lord Nazh said...

Polanski can withdraw whatever the fuck he wants to, it will still not alter the fact that under oath he swore that he RAPED a 13 year old girl. He will still be guilty of that fact.

Regardless of your past victimhood, this isn't about you, I'm not lecturing you on YOUR life or any part of it; I'm simply trying to figure out why ANYONE would want to defend the man who RAPED a 13 year old girl.

The victim's desires no longer have merit in a case against the state. Also, Wisconsin law is not California law and if you'll notice I did not state that it wasn't possible, I said I didn't know, so get over your high horse.

You're an ass, but then you knew that already. Now you're a Rapist defender, but you knew that too I suppose.

Have a great day.


I think they should leave him alone!
he TOO was failed by the justice system when he pled guilty to a lesser charge of sexual assault[I believe] on a condition of a guaranteed sentence if he did- and only AFTER he did so- the American Justice System refused to honour their agreement.
That being the case, their 'contract' should be nullified, as any other would be, as he should at best stand trial, ,not be sentenced.

I am sure he would have hired the best trial lawyers,not pled guilty and taken his chances under the circumstances.

And regardless of the crime, the courts[for everyone's sakes] have maintain integrity and honour plea bargains.

Surely also, there are statutes of limitation on this which must have expired?

It's Amercia grandtsanding.

Also, I don't think he is a pedo. If he was into children others would have come to light.
Maybe she looked much older- and I believe one of the house guests commenetd she did, indeed, look and act about 18.

I also read documents that she had a boyfriend whom she was sexually active with which her mother knew about], on a regular engaged in drinking on aregular basis and her mohter was most keen for her to be a model.
Why was the mother not charged with child neglect,herself?

I don't think this is a true paedophile case but a statutory rape one.

James Higham said...

This has now been closed off on this old site and has transferred to the new site here.

Thanks for all contributions thus far.