LETTERS
Re “How a girl’s stark words got lost in the spectacle,” Oct. 25
Times staff writer Joe Mozingo’s excellent article concerning Roman Polanski should be required reading for all of the Hollywood petition-signers and others who would attempt to diminish the seriousness of Polanski’s conduct or, worse, seemingly imply that he should escape justice because he is an artist.
Polanski is, in fact, a criminal who has evaded justice for more than 30 years. The facts are simple: Polanski, then age 43, sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl. During the ensuing judicial proceedings, he was ably represented by counsel, and he chose to plead guilty. Then he made another choice -- to flee the jurisdiction rather than take responsibility for his actions. Now it is time for Polanski to be held accountable for his crime.
Sandra J. Harris
Pasadena
::
Thank you for running the fact-based article on the front page of the Sunday edition. Do you think anyone in the Hollywood elite is upset that this “secret” is out of its insidious circle? Where is the outrage -- any parents out there?
This criminal took advantage of a young girl and violated her, struck a plea, fled the justice system, settled a related civil suit and then failed to honor the settlement. This is just the type of stand-up guy I want to support. Oh, I forgot, he’s an artist.
Steve Walsh
Redondo Beach
::
I have just two questions for Samantha Gailey Geimer: If it wasn’t rape in 1977, then why did she later sue Polanski for sexual assault and battery and accept a settlement? And if, according to her recent statements, it wasn’t rape in 1977, then why doesn’t she return any money she accepted as settlement?
As the mother of a 13-year-old girl, I am outraged that anyone, including the victim, would allege that sex with a child of this age could not be rape. There is simply nothing else that it could be.
And it’s also time that women of all ages stopped marginalizing themselves and their experiences.
Susan M. Berger
Mammoth Lakes
::
The state is broke, the city is broke, the prisons need to release prisoners by edict of the federal court, and here we have the Polanski situation.
Yes, he broke the law, but what’s realistic? He has been forgiven by his victim; he has made amends to her; there is no benefit to the system to bring him back except that the law says so, and some small-minded individuals are probably trying to make a name for themselves. That’s politics.
Let’s face the facts: It does not make sense. It’s a waste.
Peter Libkind
Newport Beach
::
Thank you, Joe Mozingo, for putting the proper focus on what Polanski did to Samantha. The facts, as your article points out so well, are clear: Polanski apparently had no photo shoot, he didn’t tell the mother about planning to take topless shots, and he did not want the mother present. Polanski then plies Samantha with alcohol, gives her part of a Quaalude, performs unwanted sex, stops to get rid of a visitor and then comes back for more. How in the world can there be so much sympathy for this man?
That she was not a virgin is irrelevant -- a mother of five can still be raped. And a woman should not be required to kick and scream in order for unwanted sex to be deemed rape.
Finally, I am troubled by the probation and psychiatry report mentioned in the article. How can professionals be so off the mark regarding the rape of a 13-year-old girl?
Ed Swanson
Altadena