Roman Polanski's victim asks court to drop charge against director

The victim of Roman Polanski’s 1977 sex charge has asked an appellate court to drop the charge against the film director, saying the unceasing publicity has disrupted her family, job and health.

Since the director’s arrest last month, Samantha Geimer and her attorney have received close to 500 phone calls from media as far as Germany, Israel and Japan, attorney Lawrence Silver wrote in a statement filed Friday.

Larry King and Oprah have beckoned, and photographers have been camped outside her Hawaii home, trying to take photos or video through holes drilled in their cars and offering gifts to her children in exchange for information, Silver wrote.

“This statement makes one more demand, one more request, one more plea: Leave her alone,” Silver wrote in the filing.

Silver said the renewed media attention following Polanski’s arrest in Switzerland and the pending extradition case has caused “health-related issues” and interfered with Geimer’s job, leading to “understandable displeasure of her employer and the real possibility that Samantha could lose her job.”

He said the “lack of sensitivity” would make it less likely that other victims of celebrity crimes would come forward.

The appellate court is reviewing an L.A. Superior Court ruling that Polanski’s case cannot be thrown out on grounds of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct while the director remains a fugitive. The Los Angeles County District Attorney has maintained that Polanski has no legal standing.

Geimer, now 46, was 13 at the time of the 1977 criminal case when she told police and a grand jury that Polanski gave her a Quaalude and champagne and raped her during a photo shoot. Her attorneys at the time supported a plea deal, saying it was in the victim’s interest, and Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

He fled to France, where he is a citizen. In 1993, Polanski settled a civil suit with Geimer and agreed to pay her at least $500,000. It is not known whether the director has paid the sum.

-- Victoria Kim

Photo: Roman Polanski. Credit: Los Angeles Times archive.

More breaking news in L.A. Now:

Psychiatrists prescribed excessive amounts of drugs to Anna Nicole Smith, expert testifies

'Crash' director cuts ties with Scientology, citing church's gay marriage stand

High school classmates probed in burglaries of young Hollywood celebrities

Metro Gold Line Eastside extension to open Nov. 15

Wrong-way driver in Anaheim could face drunk-driving charges, authorities say

Cooler temperatures, high winds coming to Southern California

Huge crowds turning out for swine flu vaccine

New sightings reported of Mitrice Richardson, woman missing from Malibu sheriff's station

Doctor who joined the Navy after his son's death in Iraq returns from deployment

'Avatar' director James Cameron plans to stay and fight next Malibu brush fire

Man shot dead in unincorporated Whittier

Comments

[jordan]

Maybe the problem here is that "the law is the law", an enormous self-perpetuating technique that we have all lost control of. I also do not understand the meaning of "a crime against humanity." There are no crimes against humanity, just crimes against victims. Do I feel victimized by Roman Polanski's crime? Absolutely not. Am I not a part of humanity then?

I also do not understand the demonizing of sex offenders in our country. No matter how slight the offense, such as consensual statutory rape committed by an 18-year-old on a 17-year-old, "sex offender" is a label that some people have to live with the rest of their lives. These people are not beasts: they are human, and humans make mistakes. For the really severe cases, there are often uncontrollable psychological issues at work. If Roman Polanski were a pedophile, as some seem to claim, we would likely hear of more cases of his deviance. But where are these other cases? There is just this one. He took some drugs, got a little too drunk, and made a huge mistake. He is not beast, and he is obviously not a habitual child rapist.

One last note. I read so much about the barbaric nature of his crime in the news. If you want barbarism, think about surviving a Nazi ghetto as child, losing your mother at Auschwitz, and having your pregnant wife murdered in one of the most notorious episodes in recent history. Roman Polanski dealt with all of these, and I am amazed he has turned out as well as he has.

[Bundy]

I like what Jordan wrote he said,"the problem here is that "the law is the law", an enormous self-perpetuating technique that we have all lost control of.

And what is "the law is the law" in this case. The movie Polanski: Wanted and Desired gives us a glimpse of that law, which was jerking Polanski around.

I don't think the cliche "The law is the law" is applicable in Polanski's case as the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband 32 years ago was going to renege on the plea bargain agreement when the agreement had already been made, and after Polanski had already served his time specified in the plea bargain agreement-

The plea bargain agreement had been formulated by the lawyers and prosecutors and victim's lawyer and agreed upon to avoid a formal trial involving the 13 year old girl.

From Polanski's perspective because the original plea bargain agreement where he had pled guilty to one count, was about to be breached by the Judge, California Justice could no longer be trusted. After all Roman had fulfilled his obligation and had done his part, and had served 42 days in Chino Prison. And Chino Prison officials reccommended releasing him with no further prison time.

The Santa Monica Judge Laurence J. Rittenband, who had leverage and the power to impose an indeterminate sentence on Polanski was about to do this as a device to RAILROAD Roman Polanski into giving up his RIGHTS to fight DEPORTATION.

This COERCION to give up Polanski's rights to fight deportation was in excess of the Judge's jurisdiction and also ILLEGAL.

Polanski flew away & escaped from injustice that was occuring against him at the Santa Monica Courthouse.

I BELIEVE ROMAN POLANSKI WOULD HAVE COMPLETED A FAIR SENTENCE .

BUT THE LAW WAS NOT FAIR, THE LAW WAS NOT THE LAW -

[Maria Martinez]

Roman Polanski invited the Manson gang into his house and was sharing his wife, Sharon Tate, with his friends, setting the stage for her murder (a quote from her: "I only sleep with other men to accommodate my husband"). On his show aired last night on CNN, Larry King perhaps recalled the life of the Polanski's when he said (speaking with her sister) that Polanski was responsible for her murder, then corrected his "mistake". King went out of his way to support Polanski on his show, bringing in Polanski supporters. Even the victim claimed that the only resentment she had against Polanski was that he caused the media attention which has been such an ordeal for her. Imagine, a woman saying she didn't mind being drugged, raped and sodomized at 13, only minded the media attention and would never have told her mother. Sounds depraved to me, as depraved as Polanski. Yet King and other members on his show last night (excepting the prosecutor) would have us believe Polanski has been victimized! As far as the 'victim rights advocate' goes - were I ever a victim, I'd stay clear of her. She even said, in effect, that child rape is a "right of passage" in France (even though 70% of the French polled believe Polanski should be genuinely punished).

Would this group parade such degraded standards for child protection if the child were their own? I'd like to think not, but given their obvious amorality, I believe they would.