Free Roman Polanski

The 1977 Polanski Case - by Aaron Weiss

Recently I discussed Polanski: The Biography a few weeks ago. It had vivid accounts of all the turbulent ordeals throughout his life. Surviving the Holocaust, rising to fame, the grotesque murder of his wife and unborn child, and of course, the rape of Samantha Gailey (now Geimer). Over the weekend, Polanski was arrested on a Los Angeles warrant dating back to the sexual misconduct case in 1977 while he was trying to enter Switzerland to accept a lifetime achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival.

This 30+ year-old issue is now back in headlines and much like any headline issue, opinions are split down the line. From the very beginning we can see how silly and obscene the US Judicial System can be. But this is my opinion on the whole situation.

In 1977 Polanski accepted a plea bargain where he would stay in the Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days of a 90 day psychiatric evaluation. This was agreed upon by both his lawyers and LA Deputy District Attorney David Wells. After his release, the DA and trial judge, Laurence J. Rittenband wanted Polanski to serve more time and later be deported after the initial sentencing.

When Polanski heard of this he immediately fled to London, and later France, where he held citizenship. He "mostly travels and works in France, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland" according to Wikipedia.

I wholeheartedly believe that Samantha Geimer deserves justice for Polanski's crimes. She did receive an undisclosed sum from a civil suit, but of course, money is not always justice.

Samantha Geimer, the girl-now married woman, has stated many times that she wants the case thrown out. Every time this issue returns, it her and her family that suffers. Every time this headline appears she is raped again, and again. She deserves justice, and if she feels that this case should be thrown out an dismissed, than she should receive her wish.

But of course the American Justice system is one of the most stubborn of all, will not rest until their image is restored.

I do not condone Polanski's treatment, rape, and sexual abuse of Samantha Geimer. He is a terrible man from what he has done, and I set aside his work and fame when I discuss this issue.

The Los Angeles court system should have been much more firmer in their sentencing immediately after his accepted the plea bargain. Once you are sentenced, that should be it. Stacking prison time after the accepted probation and examination period is wrong. It should have been done right in the first place. Now that Geimer is asking for the case to be thrown out and dismissed so everyone can move on, I think she should receive her wish.

Polanski himself is on his last legs at 72 years old. Being exiled to a certain few countries is more than enough of a punishment and should remain there. Let's but this case to rest, give Geimer her peace of mind, and Polanski his lifetime achievement award. They both deserve it.

---

Update: Tuesday Night, September 29 - 2009

I got a lot of emails these days, which come down to the question why I would defend a child's rapist, who pled guilty and fled before being sentenced.

I am NOT defending a child rapist.

I am solely going after the facts, which include the procedural rules and guidelines of the justice system under which Mr.Polanski was to be sentenced.

Mr.Polanski pled guilty as part of a plea bargain.

A deal that indicated that the time served would be sufficient punishment. Instead of living up to this deal, the judge IGNORED this plea bargain and Mr.Polanski was sent to a maximum security prison where he spent another 42 days. After that (a time period used to examine Mr.Polanski's 'state of mind' and after which the doctors involved conluded he was a sane man), it became known to Mr.Polanski that upon sencenting, the judge would ONCE MORE ignore the plea bargain deal and most likely go for a long prison sentence.

The question I don't see answered is, would Mr.Polanski have agreed on this plea bargain AT ALL, would he have known up front the judge would ignore it, more than once? In other words, would the prosecutor have had enough material to close the case on him, succesfully?

This case stirs up lots of emotions, but no one should forget that the justice system includes procedural rules and guidelines, some more ethical than others, which can never be ignored, in order to protect the involved.

The rules and guidelines in his trail were NOT respected by the judge, they were ignored more than once. There is even high suspicion of influencing the judge by the (former) prosecutor, so all in all enough to lead to an immediate dismissal (and I am leaving out the fact about the victim supporting this dismissal, the time frame of more than 30 years, all emotional aspects of the personal life of Mr.Polanski etc.).

---
Statement from the victim in the Polanski case, Mrs. Samantha Geimer, February 23, 2003

And should he come back? I have to imagine he would rather not be a fugitive and be able to travel freely. Personally, I would like to see that happen. He never should have been put in the position that led him to flee. He should have received a sentence of time served 25 years ago, just as we all agreed. At that time, my lawyer, Lawrence Silver, wrote to the judge that the plea agreement should be accepted and that that guilty plea would be sufficient contrition to satisfy us. I have not changed my mind.

I know there is a price to pay for running. But who wouldn't think about running when facing a 50-year sentence from a judge who was clearly more interested in his own reputation than a fair judgment or even the well-being of the victim?

(taken from 'Los Angeles Times' - article collections)



--
I got many questions about why I initiated this website?

I'll try to give a brief answer now but I will add to this statement during the next few days.

According to my findings Mr. Polanski did receive an unfair treatment during the time this case was active in the Los Angeles court.

First, it is important to understand that Mr. Polanski settled with the victim for an undisclosed amount. She also expressed more than once her dismay on how the case had/has been handled so far.

Even so more, she filed for dismissal with the court of Los Angeles.

Back at 1978 Mr. Polanski was offered a plea bargain: also because of the fact the prosecutor was expecting problems in getting the case through due to the lack of (adequate) evidence. The statement from the girl (13 years of age) was not strong enough.

What happened?

At the house of Jack Nicholson and his then girlfriend Anjelica Huston, the girl appeared for a photoshoot with Mr. Polanski. According to statements, she drank alcohol and had been given something like a tiny sliver of a tranquilizer.

Ms. Huston who was present in the house during the meeting between Mr. Polanski and the girl, has stated: "She (the 13 years old girl) appeared to be one of those kind of little chicks between -- she could be any age up to 25. She did not look like a 13-year-old scared little thing." She added that Mr. Polanski did not strike her as the type of man who would force himself on a young girl. "I don't think he's a bad man. I think he's an unhappy man."

The girl herself, from the beginning said, Mr. Polanski shouldn't go to prison.

Back to the case:

Mr. Polanski accepted this plea bargain under the condition that he would not serve any time in jail.

Yet, the judge in case (Rittenband) sent Mr. Polanski to a maximum security prison for mental examination, thus ignoring the plea bargain. The time he spent in this maximum security prison in order to be examined by doctors to find the question on the answer, whether or not he was (or is) a mentally disturbed sex offender, lasted 42 days. The answer to the previous mentioned question was negative.

According to several sources among which the 2008 movie 'Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired', it is clear from several facts (tapes, transcripts) that prosecutor David Wells seemed to be very unhappy by seeing Mr. Polanski NOT spending time in jail, after this examination had been concluded. Therefore he showed judge Rittenband, with whom he had a good connection, a picture of Mr. Polanski, attending a party during the Munich Oktoberfest, whereas he was supposed to be out working (on a new movie production).

Together with the given hearsay this particular judge was known to be 'image conscious', it is believed to be this picture that made him chance his mind on the plea bargain (again!) and instead intended to sentence Mr. Polanski for (more) time in prison. Being informed about this 'sudden' turn, Mr. Polanski decided to fled the US.

Having lived a life openly (not hidden!) and having appeared in public more than once, it is unclear to me why all of a sudden Switzerland decides it is time to arrest Mr. Polanski, almost 32 years after this case was active, after he settled with the victim and after even the victim herself has asked for dismissal of the case.

No one seems to benefit from this arrest. Or at least that is how it looks like. Yet, is it the truth?

Check back for updates soon.

-
Statement der Festivalleitung Filmfestival Zürich (27 September 2009)

http://www.zurichfilmfestival.org/de/news/

Statement der Festivalleitung – "Wir können die rechtlichen Hintergründe der Festnahme von Roman Polanski nicht beurteilen. Aber wird sind schockiert über den Vorfall, den wir nicht nachvollziehen können und der uns zutiefst betroffen macht. Von der geplanten Verhaftung Roman Polanskis hatten wir zu keiner Zeit Kenntnis. Mit der geplanten Würdigung des filmischen Schaffens von Roman Polanski heute Abend wollen wir unsere Solidarität mit ihm als einem der herausragenden Filmschaffenden unserer Zeit zum Ausdruck bringen. Der "A Tribute to..."-Award für sein Regie-Lebenswerk wird ihm bei der nächstmöglichen Gelegenheit übergeben.
Auf den weiteren Verlauf des Zurich Film Festivals hat der Vorfall keine Auswirkungen. Das Programm des Festivals wird wie geplant und angekündigt ablaufen."

Pressemitteilung, 27. September 2009 - Die für heute Sonntagabend vorgesehene Preisverleihung an den Filmemacher Roman Polanski ist auf einen unbestimmten Zeitpunkt verschoben worden. Der zu den grössten Filmregisseuren unserer Zeit zählende Roman Polanski hätte heute in Zürich den Preis für sein Lebenswerk entgegennehmen sollen. Er ist jedoch gestern Samstag bei seiner Einreise in die Schweiz aufgrund eines Begehrens der US-Behörden im Zusammenhang mit einem Haftbefehl aus dem Jahre 1978 festgenommen worden. Die Leitung des Zurich Film Festival hat mit Bestürzung und grosser Betroffenheit von dieser Festnahme erfahren. Sie hat entschieden, die für heute Sonntag angesetzte grosse „Tribute to Roman Polanski“-Retrospektive mit ausgewählten Werken von Roman Polanski gemäss Programm durchzuführen. Am Abend findet eine besondere Würdigung des filmischen Schaffens Polanskis durch die Festivalleitung statt, um allen, welche Roman Polanski ihre Bewunderung für sein Schaffen und ihre Solidarität ausdrücken möchten, Gelegenheit dazu zu geben.