Roman Polanski (1 Viewer)

Not open for further replies.

Lolita Twist

Gerard said:
I do like Woody Allen and he is not a perv.
That's funny about Mia being Angelina before Angelina.
Now Roman Polanski will be another thread. I read his auto biography and he makes it clear that girl wanted it and brought to him, thanks to the Quaaludes.

I got to thinking about the petition, and how I found it strange that Woody's and Scorsese's names appear almost side-by-side, at least when it's reported on by CNN. I expect Woody, ok, I do. I don't think he's a pervert, maybe a bit of a deviant but who ain't deep down? He just does things that others only think about. What I don't understand is why Martin's name is on there? I've never read or heard anything about Martin and a taboo relationship... though, I think, they're both filmmakers, he must have respect for Roman. As Gerard said, again, Polanski will have you think that she wanted it (though wouldn't any pedophile's mind say that?), and I can't say that I believe all police are uncorrupted (that's putting it mildly), especially in cities like California. So who really knows what goes on? Personally I think the prick should be let go. It was a number of years ago... (also the statute of limitations came to my mind... upon further investigation however, I learned he apparently had already made a plea of "guilty", at the time of the original, alleged crime, which had apparently been thrown out by police after he fled, therefore giving him no statute...)

I'm curious on people's thoughts on the Polanski case. If the mods want to make this into a separate thread, feel free. I didn't think I would talk this much solely about the case.
my next door neighbour was a cook in the navy. he makes kick ass lasagna, which he brings over occasionally. if I found out my neighbour was messing with little girls I'd want to see him hung from the nearest tree. I might buy the rope, even. but I'd miss the lasagna.
I get that point of view, yes. I too, want to kill people when I find out about their wrong-doings with the little people. But I'm saying, maybe Roman Polanski is just another crazy guy in the Hills who likes them a little on the young side. Can one really prove he raped her? I know when I was 13 I was seeking out relationships with older men (but I'm weird, I know, don't use me as an example). The teens are not as innocent as one may think in their older age.
Can one really prove he raped her?
Well yes they can. They don't just throw that term around in court on a whim.

In March 1977, the 44-year-old Polanski fed a 13-year-old girl champagne and a sedative, forced himself on her and anally raped her, according to the girl's grand jury testimony. He was convicted of a lesser charge "” statutory rape "” because he agreed to plead guilty.

There's a reason that even in the murky and depraved social system of a prison, guys who rape children are reviled, abused, and whenever possible, murdered. It's because guys in prison don't have time for a lot of niceties and pretense. Take away the niceties and pretense, and Polanski is (was, whatever) a child fucker. He drugged and raped a 13 year old girl.

Separating the art from the artist is a big topic around here, and blah blah blah, I'm all for that. In most cases. But some things I just can't separate. There are a few criminal types that should be executed immediately and removed from the earth, just because it would feel good to eliminate them, and as a bonus, it's biblical too! So you know that JESUS endorses it. Someone who drugs and rapes 13 year old girls is one of those types.

Polanski has made some good movies, but so what? Does being a film director make you above the law? Above normal human decency? Really?

Anyone that signs a petition to excuse him from drugging and raping a 13 year old girl should be thrown into prison with him.

And the statute of limitations - are you kidding? If he had raped your 13 year old daughter, you wouldn't forget it, and you'd still be looking for justice or vengeance decades later. The fact that he got to enjoy his life for all these years only means his punishment should be worse now, not lighter.

You know, not that I have a strong opinion one way or the other...
Last edited:
I saw the victim (if it was rape) on TV the other day, saying she had had lots of time to come to terms with what happened, and that she did'nt want Polanski to go to jail. She just want to forget whatever happened over 30 years ago. But of curse, what she wants does'nt count when the rest of society wants revenge over "Roman, the child fucker".
Last edited by a moderator:
But of curse, what she wants does'nt count when the rest of society wants revenge...
It isn't a question of the rest of society wanting revenge. A society either excuses the drugging and raping of its 13 year old girls or it doesn't. In this case, I would hope that we do not. Regardless of what Woody Allen or Martin Scorsese or any other Napoleon-complex-having dipshit speaking from a rarefied world of wealth and privilege says.

Not that I care, of course.
Last edited: usually, I don't know the WHOLE story (but then who does?) - but from what I've read many years ago:

(1) ANY sex with a minor was considered 'rape' by the US-laws then. Even if consent.
(2) the girl wasn't a little child. She was 13 and did have sex before. so she knew what she would do or agree with.
(3) taking Qualudes at that time wasn't a big thing. It's not compareable to the k.o.-drugs, some people put secretly into girl's drinks in discos to make them willing. She was aware of taking those pills. She definitely knew what was happening.

Besides - why did they catch him just now? For over 30 years Everybody knew where he was. Nobody cared.
I don't want to spread conspiracy-theories, but from history I gathered, that nerve-wracking news usually got made (or spread) at times, when governments want to keep people buzy, discussing minor issues in order to not see what's really going on in Big business.
The victim of a crime doesn't decide the perpetrator's punishment for good reason.

I agree with that principle (although I'm in doubt in this case). That's why I never could understand why a victim or the victim's family has a say in whether or not a felon should be paroled or not in the US.

Not that I care, of course.

No, of course not. We all know that. :D
Last edited by a moderator:
A 13 year old girl should be able to down a fistful of hallucinogens, guzzle a bottle of champagne, strip off all her clothes and stand naked in front of you begging you to fuck her, while you, as a grown man, say, "Yow! What has the good lord delivered unto me?! But - no, no, I don't think so, it's just not right."

If you think it is right, then what can I say.

If you want to make the argument that the 13 year old girl "asked for it" somehow, try not to forget that her grand jury testimony said that he forced himself on her. And she did not want to take the pill(s), he begged and cajoled. If you read the account of what happened you will find it difficult not to characterize Polanski as a predator, because that's how he behaved.

The idea that a 13 year old can't be raped just because she's had sex before is, I'm sorry, idiotic. If that's the case then I take it no woman who is not a virgin can be raped? Especially if she is drunk or high - because that cancels out rape, right?

Come on.

I'm done with this anyway. Arguing the obvious. Go sign the fucking petition. Knock yourselves out. Elect Polanski president of your country and feed him a steady diet of adolescents. How charming. How fucking middle ages. Hey, we have a lot more like him if you want them too. Just give us the word, we'll send them to you, wherever you are. All the poor innocent bastards. Serve up your daughters on a platter. Burn the witch!
So if you don't punish a guy like Polanski, doesn't that set a pretty dangerous precedent?

If you were to buy into one of these excuses, then there's basically no such thing as "rape" anymore because it could always be justified. Just pick whatever bullshit excuse is convenient, and then go force yourself on any woman or little girl you want.
[...] The idea that a 13 year old can't be raped just because she's had sex before is, I'm sorry, idiotic. [...]

it is!
but that wasn't my complaint and you know it.
I was only arguing that ANY sex with a minor was considered RAPE by LAW, no matter the circumstances. It coulda been her 21-yearold boyfriend and 'the law' would've made 'RAPE' out of it.

I never said and never will say, that anyone who had sex before can't be raped. If I did, you would Not have to be "sorry": it WOULD be "idiotic"!!!

I guess most of us did things at age 13 of which we now would say, that was stupid. But still, the things I did at that age were done by me and chosen by me and I was VERY AWARE (even then) that not all of this was 'wise'. I wanted to make my own experiences and was VERY angry at adults, telling me, what was 'Best' for me or what was 'bad' for me.
But the fact, that I wouldn't do certain things now anymore doesn't mean I regret having done them then.
... as a bonus, it's biblical too! So you know that JESUS endorses it. ...

But in the time of our fictional saviour, wasn't 13 years old considered over-the-hill?

Not to defend Polanski at all, but from what I understand (and I admittedly may not have all of the facts right), the judge on his case was a publicity hound judge-to-the-stars (a lot like Thomas Noguchi -- the coroner at the time), and after the plea bargain he basically threw out the lesser plea and was going to sentence Polanski to a much longer sentence than he'd agreed to. This was apparently the reason old Roman split.
...ANY sex with a minor was considered RAPE by LAW...
It is still considered statutory rape. But there's a difference between that and forcing yourself on someone.

A grown man intimidates a 13 year old - boy or girl. It would be easy - and cowardly - to use that implicit intimidation to have your way with a 13 year old. To add booze and downers to the mix just makes the barrel you're shooting the fish in that much smaller.

Again, I'm not talking about what the 13 year old wants. What the child wants. I'm talking about the grown man, and the grown man shouldn't go there.

It isn't cool, it isn't heroic, it isn't artistic and it isn't excusable. In any way. Ever.


Okay, I take that back: if it's the end of the world and you're the only two left, you may as well get busy repopulating the earth. I don't know quite how that works, technically, without creating a generation of inbred simpletons. I'll have to check the bible for the details...
[...] forcing yourself on someone.

however you define 'forcing', that's a thing that happens between people all the time, no matter their age or social position or money or personal influence or whatever ...
it's a genuine problem in so many ways, this particular one (age-difference) is just such a small part of it. And considering this, I really ain't sure, if 'forcing' does match the point. To me it looks, like this case was much LESS 'forcing' than most of the things that happen between people (even between people of age 13!).

[...] A grown man intimidates a 13 year old [...] It would be easy [...]

Sure, it "would be easy".
But: ANY prominent person would have a certain influence on ANY person.
It's not only on a 13-yo-girl. I guess almost everyone would act different if, say nowadays George Clooney or Brad Pitt, would come along and show interest in you.

And - on the other hand - I don't think, for a 'normal'(/non-prominent) person, this "would be easy" in ANY way!
I know a lot of girls at that age and really NONE of them is so naive to just give in and 'do things'.

I do see your point.
But I don't think this whole thing is about being "cool" or "heroic" or anything like that.

gotta go to bed now.
will go on tomorrow...
This thread is a good idea.

mjp is right. The adult is responsible for the conduct of the child, shame on her parents. He started the photo shoot having her pose topless in the hills behind her home, while the young neighborhood boys were riding their dirt bikes in the not so distance. This from what I remember from his autobiography I read 20 years ago. He then took her to Jack Nicholson's place where he gave her the Quaalude s in order for her to relax. Yes in so many words he admitted his guilt but he did point out that in Europe the age of consent is much younger, like 14 or something.
My impression from his logic is he feels he should be excused because he was removed from his parents- they had to go to a labor camp during the holocaust-which messed up his childhood. While he was being hidden they had him live with a lady on a farm in the country who made him sleep with her. I would think that that would make him crave hefty blond farm women.
I don't think the state of California can afford the expenditures to pursue the case- maybe California is suddenly getting the urge to appear like they have high moral fiber.
He is wrong but why suddenly 30 years later they decide to go after him?
13 years old is too young for a girl to be having sex with an adult man. At least in the States. A pair of 13 year-olds losing their virginity together is different. (BUT NOT FOR EITHER OF MY NEPHEWS IN CASE THEY'RE READING THIS SO KEEP IT ZIPPED UP) European law can work out its own standards... whatever...

And no matter how "experienced" she thinks she is or how much she thinks she can handle her booze and pills, its up to the adult man to say NO and avoid these situations in the first place.

Re Woody Allen: As far as I know, he didn't sleep with (or even have the chance to sleep with) his wife's step-daughter from a previous marriage until she moved to the States at the age of 18. In my view, that situation was a little creepy and uncomfortable, but hey - not illegal or immoral if she was of the age of consent. And I think they are still married to this day.
Was it a crime of passion? Was it a crime of love?

Was it a man seeking artistic redemption flaunting the restraints of society in unbridled creation?

Or was it....lasagna!
If the allegations are true about drugging and giving the 13 year old alcohol before having sex with her then it's a pretty despicable crime in my view. Especially as it would appear it was all planned. I don't see any reason why he should get away with it but it does seem strange that he's been allowed to get away with it for so long and that it's now being pursued. Zero sympathy for him either way though. I like the lasagne analogy though as I love 'Chinatown'.
I testifed at my daughters rape trial this year-the result was a conviction.
She went to her friends house the night before basketball camp-for 13-15 year olds yup the father of her friend 47 with more money than god
Let me tell you sitting in court knowing the person you're looking at the accused is sitting their hoping to get away with it and knowing that every word is a possible window for the defence is a mind fuck I don't wish on anyone and wished my daughter didn't have to go though either. She had to testify for 2 days-2 days. On day 2 she wanted to quit-that was their plan-pressure pressure look for mistakes. Thankfully her mom-my ex-talked her through-then it was my turn.
I've heard he's been beat up 3x and hard a heart attack since being locked up in March.
I wish Polanski the fate he has earned.
That's a heartbreaking story, Jimmy Snerp, really.
I wish your daugher, you and her mom all the strength.

I'm still wondering why they haven't arrested Polanski when he escaped to Europe.
It was a number of years ago
For over 30 years Everybody knew where he was. Nobody cared.
why suddenly 30 years later they decide to go after him?
it does seem strange that he's been allowed to get away with it for so long and that it's now being pursued.
I'm still wondering why they haven't arrested Polanski when he escaped to Europe.

Would knowing 'why' make you feel better about locking him up for the rest of his life? If so, I hope you get your answer.

I don't really care why they made a move on him now. Why does the IRS come after you years after you "forget" to report that $10,000? Why does it take 20 years of construction to add one new lane to a freeway in Los Angeles? Why do we talk about a poet who has been dead for 15 years?

If Polanski's arrest, detention, apprehension or whatever you want to call it is motivated purely by the spite and self-interest of one person, or a small group of people, what difference does that make? He did what he did.

If a 13 year old can make conscious decisions and have to live with the consequences, why not Polanski? Why do so many want to absolve him of any consequences? It baffles me. It's like teaching school children that Nixon was really a swell guy, and anyway, all that icky illegal stuff that he did was a long time ago...
Why do so many want to absolve him of any consequences? It baffles me.

for some twisted reason they can't appreciate the seriousness of it i would guess.
i can't imagine anyone with a direct connection to someone who suffered an abuse like that not wanting to string the guy up by his balls and worse.
I'd like to know why Polanski has been arrested a few days ago, more
then 30 years after he did what he did. What happened, or better, what didn't happen
during these 3 decades. That's all I want to know.
I guess he bought himself out of the shit and used his stardom as a tool, also.

I've barely heard of a rapist/pedophile who did it only once, so who knows what happened? It was a long and free time for him, now suffocate, please.

The thing about 'easier' laws in Europe is a bullshit excuse. If I'm not ill informed, in Germany it is legal to have sex as an adult with somebody who is at least 16 years old, not any younger. I don't think the law is different in other EU countries.

But to rape somebody at no matter what age, you should be punished to amputee your own genitals and eat them as your execution meal.
I'd like to know why Polanski has been arrested a few days ago, more then 30 years after he did what he did.

Why did it happen now, after 30 years? Well, that's easy.


- Dateline: 10 September - 18 September 2009 - trivia thread:

Ok, let's stay with the letters. This one should be relatively easy to answer:

Bukowski called somebody a "child fucker" in a letter. Who was that somebody?.

I don't have a clue but I'm gonna say Polanski just because of the time frame.

You're right, Bilville! It was Roman Polanski. Buk calls him, "Roman the child-fucker", in a letter to John Martin, August 18, 1979 (Living On Luck, page 270).

- Dateline: 26 September 2009 - Zurich, Switzerland: Polanski is arrested for child rape.


Case closed. wins again.
Last edited by a moderator:
I testifed at my daughters rape trial this year-the result was a conviction.

Sorry Jimmy Snerp to hear that your young daughter had to live through that.
I hope that you found some peace knowing that this guy has been punished for what he has done and that he is not running free.
Why did it happen now, after 30 years? Well, that's easy.

I know, mdr - it's my fault (or merit?) Polanski got arrested!
We've just been talking about weird coincidences in another thread, and now this happens! Praise Jebus!

The international influence and power of one little gray web site is truly terrifying to behold. We must be careful and even-handed guardians of such influence.

Absolutely! I'll have to think twice next time before I mention anybody's name. :D

The thing about 'easier' laws in Europe is a bullshit excuse. If I'm not ill informed, in Germany it is legal to have sex as an adult with somebody who is at least 16 years old, not any younger. I don't think the law is different in other EU countries.

It's 15 in Denmark and I believe it's the same in some of the other countries over here. I don't think it's lower in any of the other European countries.
Of course, Jerry Lee Lewis was able to marry his 13 year old cousin, but that was in America. :D
Last edited by a moderator:
Bukfan said:
...Of course, Jerry Lee Lewis was able to marry his 13 year old cousin, but that was in America. :D

Yeah... that comes to mind as well - why isn't that wrong, again? At least in the movie-portrayal of Lewis' life, the only person that seemed to have a problem with it was Ryder's father. Tell me why Jerry Lee Lewis gets less news coverage than Roman Polanski. Obviously I don't have to tell you guys no law system is un-flawed, but really now...

So Woody Allen's in the right, because he get's her when she's a day over 18.
And... Roman Polanski is in the wrong because... he subtracted 5 years? Yes I understand her testimony, and the coverage, that he allegedly drugged her and boozed her up... though even though it's in her testimony, how should we know that's true? How do we know (we don't) that she wasn't told what to say on the stand? I certainly was, and facing hell if I didn't.
You're right, the 13 year old was a lying whore and got what she deserved. You've convinced me.
Yeah I read it, but it's stupid, so I didn't know how else to respond but stupidly.

Ahhhhh...jesus christ....let's see....why isn't there an uproar over Jerry Lee Lewis (seriously?) - hmm, okay, well, maybe because he married his 13 year old, presumably legally in whatever hillbilly state they lived in, and presumably with that 13 year old's parents consent, misguided as it may have been, rather than simply drugging and raping her.

There's that minor difference.

How do we know she didn't just lie about the whole thing? Well sure. I mean, every 13 year old I've ever known has done that. Accused a grown man of raping them, then stuck with that lie all the way through a grand jury hearing. Happens every day. It's nothing to these kids, pulling those kinds of wacky stunts.

What's your problem anyway that you want to defend someone who would do that? What's the rationale there?

I think all of you who make excuses for him are fucked in the head. Seriously. You're the reason elections are so depressing in this country. Because I know when I cast my lonely little vote I'm up against millions of idiots who believe the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group secretly control the government and Roman Polanski is a sweet guy who was slandered by some gold-digging 13 year old cunt.
Sorry, I had to close this. I don't want to know what any of you think about Polanski any more. It's making me pig-sick down to the bottom of my pretty feet. No mas, no mas.

The rats have swarmed into the belfry, and anything sane that survives will be hurled out to sea and stomped down like a dwarf in a shitrain. As the kids say (those lying fuckers!).


When I first met Roman Polanski I was living with my mother and sister in the San Fernando Valley. It wasn't Ozzie and Harriet, but we had a nice family life. My mother was a working actress, and I wanted to be like her. I wanted to be famous"”a movie star. But I was really just on the edge of ceasing to be a tomboy and trying to act more like a young lady. I had a 17-year-old boyfriend who drove a Camaro, but my room was knee-deep in clothes; I had a Spider-Man poster on the wall and I kept pet rats.

My sister was dating a guy who knew Roman and introduced him to my mom, who had actually met him once before at a club. When Polanski said he'd take some pictures of me and put them in a European magazine, it was exciting. We thought it would be a good thing for my career.

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.

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. What I should have said is, "It's none of your business." We stopped off at Jacqueline Bisset's house, but I didn't recognize her at the time. Someone offered me a glass of wine, but I said no and went out by the pool because I didn't have anything to say to the adults. He took some shots of me wearing jeans and a white shirt tied up at the waist, but we were only there for about 15 minutes.

Then we go to Jack Nicholson's house. I had seen Chinatown and I was thinking "Wow! Jack Nicholson." The maid lets us in and disappears, so as far as I am concerned we are alone, and I'm very far from home. Polanski asks me to pose, drinking champagne. I wouldn't take the wine earlier but when he says champagne, that sounds interesting to me. He keeps refilling my 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. 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-third. He takes what's left and tells me to lie down for a minute. I know he wants to have sex and he is not taking no for an answer. I'm intoxicated and afraid and don't know what to do, so I just let it happen.

Then Anjelica Huston [who was Jack Nicholson's girlfriend at the time] knocked on the door. I assume she asked him, "What are you doing in my room?" I started to get dressed, but Polanski came back and said, "Lay back down," and he took off my underwear. He had been interrupted, so he finished"”briefly"”then went back to talk to her. I got dressed and went out to the car and started to cry. He took me home and said, "Don't tell your mom what happened." But my sister heard me telling my boyfriend on the phone what happened. My mom asked me if it was true, then called the police. That's when all hell broke loose.

The fallout was worse than what had happened that night. It was on the evening news every night. Reporters and photographers came to my school and put my picture in a European tabloid with the caption Little Lolita. They were all saying, "Poor Roman Polanski, entrapped by a 13-year-old temptress." I had a good friend who came from a good Catholic family, and her father wouldn't let her come to my house anymore. It was even worse for my mother because everyone was saying it was her fault. Meanwhile, I just shut down and didn't talk. I was this sweet 13-year-old girl, and then all of a sudden I turned into this pissed-off 14-year-old. I was mad at my attorney; I was mad at my mom. I never blamed her for what happened, but I was mad that she had called the police and that we had to go through this ordeal. Now I realize she went through hell trying to handle things as best she could.

What I did with my life over the next five years was self-destructive. I had been heading in a positive direction before that, going on auditions, getting into commercials. But I never really got back on course. You can't be a movie actress and have this kind of secret. If I had pursued acting, it would have all come back and slapped me in the face again. So I became a rebellious teenager. I left school at 16 and hung out with a group of wilder kids. I was pregnant at 18 and married at 19.

- Samantha Geimer
Last edited:
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread