The case against fugitive film director Roman Polanski has exploded with new allegations he molested another teen-aged girl and it’s ripping apart stars like Michael Douglas and Woody Allen at the celebrated Cannes Film Festival.
British actress Charlotte Lewis lit a fuse under the case when she said Polanski took sexual advantage of her while she was just 16 and filming a movie for him.
Lewis appeared in Polanski’s 1986 film “Pirates.” Four years earlier, in 1982, the alleged assault took place when the director invited her to his Paris apartment.
He took advantage of me in the “worst way,” Lewis said at a news conference on Friday (May 14).
What makes her allegations all the more egregious is the fact that Polanski had already pleaded guilty for having unlawful sex in 1977 with then 13-year-old Samantha Geimer. He fled the United States to avoid imprisonment a year later.
The allegations involving Lewis, who is now 42, suggest that Polanski is a serial molester.
“I know I should have gone to the relevant authorities at the time, but I was scared and ashamed. I somehow thought it was my fault. He sexually abused me and manipulated me in the worst way,” she said.
Charlotte Lewis with her lawyer Gloria Allred at her news conference.
Lewis claimed the incident caused her to sink into drugs and depression that ruined her acting career.
“There needs to be some justice. I’m telling the truth and Roman Polanski knows I’m telling the truth.” said Lewis.
Her comments, however, touched off an angry reaction from Polanski’s lawyers.
Lawyer Georges Kiejman said in an interview in France he is “absolutely astonished” by Lewis’ claims, and is considering legal action.
“Everything that has been said is a web of lies,” added Herve Timime, another Polanski lawyer.
In Cannes, the Polanski case is the talk of the festival as stars take sides in the controversy.
Michael Douglas said he refused to sign a petition filled with the names of Hollywood stars, asking prosecutors to drop their extradition case against Polanski.
Douglas said he refused because it would be “unfair.” Polanski, he noted, not only admitted committing the crime, but jumped bail.
French stars, such as Jean-Luc Godard, Agnes Varda, Bertrand Tavernier and Olivier Assayas are leading the petition drive.
Film director Woody Allen, 74, is among U.S. celebrities who are also siding with Polanski.
Sarah Geimer at the time of the rape and today.
Allen said the exiled film director has already suffered enough and “paid his due” in the case.
“It’s something that happened many years ago… He’s an artist, he’s a nice person, he did something wrong and he paid for it. They [his critics] are not happy unless he pays (for) the rest of his life,” Allen said in an interview.
“They would be happy if t hey could execute him in a firing squad. Enough is enough,” Allen added.
Lewis lashed out at those who are supporting Polanski.
“I’ve been angry with some of the people in Hollywood who have spoken out in support of Polanski. Hollywood is giving the wrong message,” she said.
Samantha was willing to remove clothing to advance her career, and purposely hid her topless modeling activities with Roman Polanski at the first photo shoot from her mother knowing that her mother would have immediately terminated Samantha’s modeling “opportunity” with Roman Polanski if she had known what was going on.
Samantha’s mother Susan Galey was lax in leaving her underage daughter unattended with Roman Polanski for a photo shoot, and the mother’s negligence in regards to her daughter was compounded by her daughter Samantha’s deceit, who by purposely concealing her topless modeling activities with Polanski from her mother, for the sole purpose of advancing Samantha’s modeling career, blocked her Adult mother Susan Galley from intervening sooner to stop Samantha’s sexual collision with Roman Polanski before it occurred.
This seems to have been a trap for Roman Polanski, with both mother and daughter contributing to the sexual collision, with everyone involved being tempted by different rewards.
A troubling question is this, was only Roman Polanski’s action illegal in California in 1977? Since everyone involved contributed to this problem, I am not sure why was this case not tossed out a long time ago.
Every young girl and mother should be aware that if girl tempts a man by being topless, and deliberately hides this from her mother, and the young girl goes back for more there may be trouble, much more than she bargained for. After all men are only human.
Samatha said “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.”
Jim – I have been asking people for evidence that Polanski did more than he admitted. So far, nothing. By the same token, there is no evidence Samantha and her mother did anything wrong either. Without such evidence, I can only conclude Samantha and her mother are as presumptively innocent as Polanski is of the accusations folks here like to hurl.
As to what Samantha said Polanski did, I can only conclude verification is as impossible as verification that Samantha and her mother conspired. And such verification is the foundation of our justice system.
So, one side accusing the other unverifiable wrongs, is a double-edged sword. One side can not charge the other with any wrongdoing based purely on speculation.
Stanley- One piece of evidence seems to be verified which is that Samantha took her top off at the first shoot and did not tell her mother because she wanted the career opportunity. I believe this is documented in People magazine and in not communicating with her mother she also to this degree compromised her safety for a career opportunity.
Lily- I am not sure, what your evidence would actually prove in respect to Jim’s posting. I can’t see any proof for anything wrong in professional photo shoot behaviour (in a public place I may add, on a hill). Any illegal behaviour involved in not telling her mother? Any danger involved that she could foresee?
Jim – I can think of a lot of reasons why Samantha removed clothing, including that she was trying to advance her career. But none of those reasons can be corroborated.
Stanley – Samantha knew the difference between right and wrong, admitted as much by saying if Samantha had told her mother about taking her top off at the first photo shoot with Roman Polanski that her mother would have stopped Samantha’s future career opportunity with Polanski.
Jim said “I can think of a lot of reasons why Samantha removed clothing, including that she was trying to advance her career. But none of those reasons can be corroborated.”
The fact that Samantha was trying to advance her career is corroborated by what Samantha told People Magazine with Samantha’s admission that she hid her topless shoot with Polanski from her mother .
“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.”
Link: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20124052,00.html
Jim – Good research. It does establish that Samantha was willing to remove clothing to advance her career. Did you intend it to mean anything else?
Stanley – Thanks Jack. Yes there is something else.
In addition to establishing that Samantha was willing to remove clothing to advance her career, the interview also establishes that Samantha purposely hid her topless modeling activities with Roman Polanski at the first photo shoot from her mother knowing that her mother would immediately terminate Samantha’s modeling “opportunity” with Roman Polanski.
It is already established, that Samantha’s mother Susan Galey was lax in leaving her underage daughter unattended with Roman Polanski for a photo shoot, (despite her excuses) but what is not so well understood is that the mother’s casualness with her daughter was exacerbated by her daughter Samantha,
who by purposely not disclosing her topless modeling activities with Polanski to her mother, and for the sole purpose of advancing Samantha’s modeling career, blocked her own Adult mother Susan Galley from intervening sooner to stop Samantha’s sexual collision with Roman Polanski before it occurred.
This seems to have been a trap for Roman Polanski, with both mother and daughter contributing to the sexual collision, with everyone being tempted by the different rewards.
I am also left with a troubling question, is it true that only Roman Polanski’s action was illegal in California? And if not, I am not sure why this case was not tossed out at the time.
This is about bait and switch contracts made with Roman Polanski, and County of Los Angeles Judges, Prosecutors, District Attorneys plus 13 & 16 year olds tossing integrity to the wind by prostituting themselves for fame, glory financial gain.
WHEN LOS ANGELES OFFICIALS SEEK PROMOTION TO HIGHER OFFICE IN CALIFORNIA, temptations may present themselves, which if acted upon serve to undermine their integrity also.
So if you want to be a Federal Appeals Judge and you ratify the Torture Memos, you’ll get your promotion.
After that you’ll protect California Justices who got their promotion by holding staged hearings with undocumented white sheriff deputies present in the Santa Monica courtroom to assault and batter sexual assault victims for reporting police corruption.
And in the case of the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband and actress Charlotte Lewis both abandoned their integrity to gain fame, glory, at famed Roman Polanski’s expense through making agreements which they breached after Polanski had performed his side of the bargain
In both cases Polanski complied with what Judge Rittenband and Charlotte wanted whiile Charlotte remained silent as her career was made, and both betrayed Roman Polanski.
Steve Cooley who is now seeking higher office in California, is also betraying Polanskifor all the same reasons, using Polanski’s name to enhance his own political campaign for higher office.
Los Angeles DA Steve Cooley wants to extradite Polanski under false pretenses by not providing the correct information to the Swiss Justice regarding Polanski’s sentence which should be for time Polanski already served at Chino Penitentiary California in the 1970’s.
This is such hypocrisy.
This is about two European men that made it in Hollywood show biz.
The Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger could and should give Polanski a pardon after all Arnold also has slept with underage girls in California .
So if you are the actor in Terminator or work for California as California’s Governor you get a free pass and are forgiven for having sex with minors and for sexually assaulting women who are not minors with impunity.
but this same forgiveness standard has not been extended to Roman Polanski.
So California Government employs one standard for Arnold with its Body Built In Government Claim 910 oppression against sexual assault & sexual discrimination victims,
but not the same forgiveness standard is applied to Roman Polanski who does not work for California.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said that Polanski should be treated like everyone else, and since the Californians and their government pardoned Arnold for his prior transgressions (of course he was never charged), so to California’s Governor Arnie should pardon Roman Polanski.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And if it is not – then it is discrimination pure and simple.
Hey ‘Bud’ or should I call you Jasmine or Juniper or Maggy May or Madeline . . . OR JUST ROMAN ?
Polanski-
That’s right, I figured it was you commenting all along.
The dead giveaway was when you used ‘Bud’ and ‘Juniper” and ‘Jasmine’ all in the same article written by YOUR LAWYERS:
http://laregledujeu.org/2010/05/17/1538/les-avocats-americains-de-roman-polanski-exigent-une-demande-d’extradition-assortie-des-faits-circonstancies/
Anyone can do their own sleuthing by searching for
Google:[ "Charlotte Lewis popping up" ] and go look at the
comments left by Bud and Jasmine and Juniper . . . and Madeline and Maggy May in some of the other found links.
They are all one and the same, Polanski himself, unable to let these comments go out UNSCRIPTED, that would be unprofessional!
Let us all hope Mia and Natahsa come clean about how Polanski drugged them so Samantha and Charlotte aren’t left out here as vilified liars! Please do the right thing here for all child victims of rape that feel it was somehow their fault!
-Max
This topic concerns honest contracts versus dishonest bait and switch contracts which were made with Roman Polanski and which dishonest contracts betrayed him.
This topic is also about County of Los Angeles Judges and DA’s as well as 16 year olds or even 13 year olds tossing integrity out of the window to the wind & prostituting their integrity for fame, glory financial gain and in the case of County of Los Angeles Officials such as Judges and LADA’s or prosecutors promotions within the State of California or to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Also if you ratify the Torture Memos you will also be promoted to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for your service to the Bush Administration.
In the case of the deceased Santa Monica Judge Rittenband and English actress Charlotte Lewis. Both prostituted their integrity and abandoned their principles to gain fame, glory, press at Roman Polanski’s expense.
through pretending to make agreements with Roman Polanski whether written or otherwise, and then after Polanski performs his side of the bargain then the contract was broken.
In both cases Roman Polanski complied with what Judge Laurence J. Rittenband and Charlotte Lewis seemed to want, but both did not play straight with him, and both betrayed him.
The current DA Steve Cooley who is seeking higher office to be Attorney General of California. is also betraying Roman Polanski, by not providing the correct and complete information to the Swiss Justice Department.
I SAID IT ALL ALONG, MOVIE MONEY WILL GET SPENT ON THESE BLOGS. THIS IS NOW A TOTALLY SCRIPTED BLOGING-SPHERE USING SOME OF THE $MILLION$ LEFT FOR PROMOTING ‘GHOST WRITER’ DVD SALES!
HERE is POLANSKI and his tag team directing scores of lowly-paid bloggers to throw out this trash. Haven’t you noticed that all of the sudden after ‘SHE SEDUCED HIM’ was not working, ‘JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT’ became the mantra, and the comments were well written and logical. “GHOST WRITTEN” you might say!.
HERE IS THE PROOF, TELL ME WHY BUD AND MAGGIE USE THE SAME, FIRST AND LAST PARAGRAPH BUT BUD CHANGES IT EVER SO SLIGHTLY. THEY HAVE AN “F_ING SCRIPT” BUT THEY ARE TOLD TO BE CREATIVE SO THAT THEY AREN’T ALL EXACTLY THE SAME! GUESS WHAT, IF THE PARAGRAPH BELOW WAS EXACTLY THE SAME THEN BUD COULD SAY HE ‘COPIED IT’, BUT IT ISN’T AND HE COULDN’T BE GOING FROM MEMORY BECAUSE HIS COMMENT WAS JUST 21 MINUTES AFTER MAGGIES!
Maggie 3:21pm (11:21 Gstaad Standard time):
Maggie: The actress Charlotte Lewis popping up now,
Bud: 3:42PM (11:42 Gstaad Standard time):
Bud: The actress Charlotte Lewis popping up now, what great timing!,
Maggie: is a good diversion to blur the
Bud: is a good diversionary tactic to blur the California
Maggie: Judicial & Prosecutorial misconduct that has taken place in Polanski’s 1977 case and the current
Bud: Judicial & Prosecutorial misconduct that has taken place in Polanski’s 1977 case and the current Los Angeles
Maggie: prosecutorial misconduct now in disguising from Switzerland the exact sentence that is left for Roman Polanski so as to be able
Bud: prosecutorial misconduct now in disguising from Switzerland the exact sentence that is left for Roman Polanski so as to get Roman Polanski
Maggie: to falsely extradite him from Switzerland.
Bud: falsely extradited by Swiss Authorities.
-MAX, NOT PAID TO MAKE UP LIES FOR SERIAL PEDOPHILES !
The actress Charlotte Lewis popping up now, what great timing!, is a good diversionary tactic to blur the California Judicial & Prosecutorial misconduct that has taken place in Polanski’s 1977 case and the current Los Angeles prosecutorial misconduct now in disguising from Switzerland the exact sentence that is left for Roman Polanski so as to get Roman Polanski falsely extradited by Swiss Authorities.
Also Charlotte Lewis is a good diversion to take away from the fact that the California Statutes and laws have been applied in a discriminatory and vague manner in Polanski’s case all along, with two sentences for the same crime which should not pass U.S. Constitutional muster.
However the Judges & Federal Courts don’t seem to care, because the U.S. CONSTITUTION IS CURRENTLY OPERATING OUT OF A PAPER BAG, or alternatively in PLATO’S CAVE with the World’s public seeing the shadows of Justice California, instead of real Justice.
In Roman Polanski’s 1977 criminal case Santa Monica Judge Laurence J. Rittenband used California Penal Code Section 1203.03 as Polanski’s sentence even though it was not designed to be a sentence.
In Aug 1977 when the original Los Angeles prosecutor Roger Gunson told the Judge that Penal Code # 1203.03 was not designed to be a sentence the Santa Monica Judge replied: “I’m going to do it anyhow.”
And when Los Angeles Prosecutor Gunson asked his Los Angeles prosecutor Superiors, one of whom now is a 9th Circuit Judge, to remove the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband, his County of Los Angeles Prosecutor superiors stopped him from doing so.
Later on Sept 19th 1977 there was a fake hearing at the Santa Monica Courthouse where the Judge and all parties knew the outcome in advance, but not the public or the press.
Then after Polanski served his Penal Code 1203.03 sentence and was release early from Chino prison with the recommendation of no further prison time, the Santa Monica Judge unfairly wanted to sentence Polanski again to a second sentence, even though there was just one crime.
In another case which involved police cover up of a sexual assault case at the same Santa Monica Courthouse in 1998, the Santa Monica Judge used the California Government Code Requirement 910 to hold a fake hearing where the victim of sexual molestation and police cover up of it could not prevail because of that California Government 910 Statute. So why did the Judge hold this staged hearing?
The Santa Monica Judge at this STAGED HEARING, also allowed the defendant police officer to control the hearing by hiding the California Government 910 statute requirement, and also permitted undocumented police to be stationed in and around the courtroom, who later assaulted and battered and falsely arrest her in retaliation for reporting police cover up of her sexual assault complaint against an instructor at one of California’s Colleges.
Another purpose of the fake hearing at a California Courthouse was to launder College Officials & police non-testimonial activities, their prior crimes against the female who had been sexually molested by a California Instructor on the College campus, and to win judgment plus intimidate and deter her forcefully – from going any further.
As there have been at least TWO STAGED HEARINGS at the Santa Monica Courthouse, where the Santa Monica Judges use the California Statutes to violate the People’s civil rights with impunity when there is no integrity or due process of law, equal protections of the laws, and where the California Statutes are used for a purposes not intended on their face.
In addition the Federal Courts are aiding and abetting with the guarantee that people’s civil rights will continue to be violated with impunity in California, using such decisions as Pony v. County of Los Angeles to terminate civil rights cases in California, which conflicts with U.S. Constitutional law.
See Link below:
http://openjurist.org/433/f3d/1138/pony-v-county-of-los-angeles
Note: Pony v. County of Los Angeles 433 F3d 1138 (9th Circ. January 11th 2006) was written by Judge Jay S. Bybee who became a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge after ratifying the TORTURE MEMOS for the Bush Administration.
A similar character appeared in the movie The Ghost Writer, where a Ghost Writer had disappeared & died on January 11th or 12th
Because California Statutes are being used in a discriminatory manner with no appeals possible in California Courts, and no due process of law,
Because Roman Polanski has served his time by serving Penal Code Sentence 1203.03 which was not appealable, and was not designed to be a sentence,
Because Roman Polanski should not have to serve two sentences for one crime.
Because California Authorities and Statutes are not to be trusted in how they are being applied at the Santa Monica Courthouse in sexual assault cases,
Because in Roman Polanski’s 1977 Santa Monica Case there was illegal Judicial & Prosecutorial corruption against Roman Polanski
Because the District Attorney’s Office has used incomplete and false information to request that the Swiss Government extradite Roman Polanski to California, since he served the sentence agreed upon in the plea bargain agreement.
Because the District Attorney’s Office has not wanted to add another sentence for Polanski leaving California in 1977 before he was to receive his second sentence which is telling
Because 77 year old Roman Polanski is no threat to anyone.
Because Roman Polanski either has 48 days or no days left to serve in California – which is not 6 months, and thus does not fit Switzerland’s extradition procedure which must be 6 months or more.
For all the above reasons Roman Polanski should be released as soon as possible by the Swiss Authorities, NOT TORTURED ANY LONGER so he can go home to France to his wife, family and friends.
Amazing. There always seems to be someone coming forward to defend serial child rapists, as long as they are famous.
He admitted to anal intercourse with a 13 yr old after giving her drugs. That makes him a child rapist. There is no other way it could happen, since you know, 13 yr old’s can’t consent to sex.
Now we have a 16 yr old actress coming forward with fresh allegations, que the apologists who argue anything to get their hero off.
Imagine arguing that this douche should be let off because the age of consent in France is 16. So as long as he just rapes 16 yr old girls overseas, you’re comfortable with it?
Gloria Allred again? All those news wires in view.
The English Actress Charlotte Lewis doesn’t sound or act very convincing to me. I would not cast her in that part for a movie, because she doesn’t seem or act believable. She has to read it, instead of say it and she is not looking at the camera.
If sex occurred between her and Roman Polanski, then Charlotte seems to have wanted her cake in Pirates, and eat it too.
Did Charlotte Lewis sell her soul to the devil for a part in Polanski’s Pirates movie? And if she did so she was paid for her sexual services with a part in Pirates which made her career. If so so why does Charlotte want to renege on the consummation of the deal now? If there was sex between the two, isn’t she breaching the terms of their agreement and selling Roman Polanski out so Charlotte can have another 15 minutes of fame? What a blood sucker, what betrayal. As far as I am concerned if this is true which it may not be, Charlotte went along with this for 28 years, she made her bed for a part in a movie and stardom and she should lie in it. I may have more empathy for her if she had walked away and had not starred in Pirates, but that is not the scenario.
Also I did not know that the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office and Los Angeles Prosecutors had jurisdiction over sexual assault cases in Paris France Europe that occurred 28 years ago.
Also are there not statute of limitations problems?
And the age of consent in Paris France is 15 apparently. So the English lady was above age in Paris France, even if anything really happened.
The actress Charlotte Lewis popping up now, is a good diversion to blur the Judicial & Prosecutorial misconduct that has taken place in Polanski’s 1977 case and the current prosecutorial misconduct now in disguising from Switzerland the exact sentence that is left for Roman Polanski so as to be able to falsely extradite him from Switzerland.