Polanski Agreed to Pay Victim $500,000 in 1993 Despite Professing His Love for Young Girls

230px-polanskiiffkvThere are reports this week detailing a 1993 agreement of Roman Polanski to pay Samantha Geimer $500,000 in damages for raping her when she was thirteen. It is an interesting twist in the case because Geimer later said that she forgave Polanski and advocated that charges be dropped. The agreement came 16 years after the rape when Polanski was living as a fugitive and trying to come home.

He pleaded guilty in 1977 to having unlawful sex with a minor.

What is equally striking is that he failed to pay for the money for three years and owed her an additional $100,000 in interest. It is still not known if he owes her any of the money. It appears that 12 years after the crime, Geimer had filed a claim for payment to damages.

Polanski also does not come across as particularly guilt-ridden in an interview in 1979 when asked about the case. While saying how much he loved living in Paris as a fugitive, he explained to “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!” Well, I can certainly see what all of the celebrities feel so strongly about dropping all charges against him, here. That would make the half of million dollars as a cost of doing business as a pedophile.

In a 2003 op-ed, Geimer described the crime:

I met Roman Polanski in 1977, when I was 13 years old. I was in ninth grade that year, when he told my mother that he wanted to shoot pictures of me for a French magazine. That’s what he said, but instead, after shooting pictures of me at Jack Nicholson’s house on Mulholland Drive, he did something quite different. He gave me champagne and a piece of a Quaalude. And then he took advantage of me.

It was not consensual sex by any means. I said no, repeatedly, but he wouldn’t take no for an answer. I was alone and I didn’t know what to do. It was scary and, looking back, very creepy.

For the full story, click here.

23 thoughts on “Polanski Agreed to Pay Victim $500,000 in 1993 Despite Professing His Love for Young Girls”

  1. I did know the details of this crime.
    There was a lot of talk that the rape was purely statutory, but consensual nonetheless, like in R Kelly’s case.
    But hearing the description of the circumstance from the victim, there is no question that this was a real sex crime – she said no, was drugged, and effectively forced into having nonconsensual sex.
    So, if I had any bias for Polanski, I don’t anymore.
    It is a cut and dry crime, even from a libertarian point of view.

  2. Berliner,

    I didn’t say their reason wasn’t valid. I said they were being difficult. You didn’t appreciate the joke at the French’s expense, well, ankommen ein Sinn über Humorist.

    If you want to talk rule of law, then you’re still missing the point.

    If a crime takes place on American soil, unless the foreign perp has diplomatic immunity, the criminals are subject to American law as a matter of subject matter and personal jurisdiction, end of story. France has no right to assert superior jurisdiction based on his citizenship unless the criminal has ambassadorial status or some other reason for diplomatic immunity once he’s abroad. As for alternative processes available? Sure, the CA prosecutors could have done that. In fact, I think that’s what would have happened hadn’t Polanski been such a high profile flaunting his flight from prosecution in the media half-wit. He attracted way too much attention to himself. Fortunately for prosecutors but no so much for Roman, there is more than one way to skin this cat. The CA prosecutors chose to wait for a chance at extradition from a third country and it paid off. That you don’t like their choice is irrelevant. It’s not your tactical decision any more than it is mine.

  3. “[…] will come down to the battle over your own intra-member extradition in addition to this layer of the EU agreement with the US.”

    Not quite sure what you’re mean by that.

    The “battle” right now is between the Swiss Confederation and the USA. No EU members involved.

    Because he left France, France has lost any jurisdiction. I see no involvement of the EU.

    But when he was inside French borders, he the French had jurisdiction over his crimes in California. Which was my point in my reply to you.

    But my original point is that both you and Ken in Tucson seem to think that the French “protect” Mr. Polanski with “no valid reason”, that they were simply “being difficult”.
    Yep, the rule of law is sometimes difficult for prosecutors.

    But if the Californian authorities really wanted him punished, they could have requested a trial in France as soon as he landed there 1977. But they didn’t.

Comments are closed.