Vote 2020 graphic
Everything you need to know about and expect during
the most important election of our lifetimes

Roman Polanski Finally Admits 13-Year-Old Girl Was His 'Victim'

Illustration for article titled Roman Polanski Finally Admits 13-Year-Old Girl Was His Victim

In a new documentary, Roman Polanski publicly admits for the first time that he actually hurt Samantha Geimer when he raped her back in 1977.

According to the Telegraph, the film Roman Polanski: A Film Memoir, which premiered at the Zurich Film Festival yesterday, includes the following assessment of Geimer by Polanski: "She is a double victim: my victim and a victim of the press." Polanski has never denied having sex with Geimer when she was 13 years old — at his 1978 trial, he pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor. And in a now-infamous 1979 interview, he said,

If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!

Advertisement

Previously, Polanski and many of his supporters have treated the 1977 night when he gave Geimer champagne and quaaludes and then penetrated her against her will like it was a bit of harmless fun — Polanski's wife Emmanuelle Seigner chalked the whole thing up to the seventies being "a crazy time." For the first time, Polanski is admitting that it might've been something else — something like, well, rape. It's too little and too late from a man whose refusal to face justice touched off a groundswell of rape apology by some of the world's richest and most famous people. But it's something.

Advertisement

Roman Polanski: Fugitive Director Admits Rape Woman 'Double Victim' [Telegraph]

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

drunkexpatwriter
DrunkExPatWriter

Ok. I wasn't in America when the Swiss police grabbed Polanski, but were people in America really being "rape apologists?"

I got the sense from the news articles that I read that, like in France, some people thought he acted out in a violent, horrible way against this girl (and any reading of what happened makes it clear that it was a violent and horrible rape) because he was essentially insane after the brutal murder of his wife and unborn child - i.e. the feeling was that he did something very, very wrong, but because of the unique circumstances needed serious psychological help more than society needed for him to be in prison.

That's not a defense of anything he did - just the thought that, in general, civilized countries sentence people who act out violently during mental breaks to psychiatric institutions and not prison. I think you can say "The piece of shit was fucking insane when this happened" and not be a rape apologist.