The news reports about Roman Polanski, almost without exception, say that he was convicted of rape and that he left the country before he was sentenced.

The news organizations are libeling Mr. Polanski. He was not convicted but pled out, and the crime was not rape, but statutory rape, which is a different crime. My concern is not over the damage done to Mr. Polanski, who deserves far worse, but that done to the news consumer. The truth is necessary and sufficient to the occupation; any attempt to call it a "profession" damages the english language.

So what happened in 1977, when Samantha Jane Gailey was 13, and Polanski was 43? We may know, because she testified before a grand jury - but she was never cross-examined. (It was in 1969 that Polanski's pregnant wife, actress Sharon Tate, and four guests were slain in his home by followers of Charles Manson. Polanski was away at the time.)

In February 1977

It started, according to her testimony before the grand jury, on February 13 at her residence in Woodland Hills when he said he wanted to photograph her. On the 20th, he returned to her home, they grabbed some clothes - blue jeans and a shirt - and he drove a block up the street for the photography. He shot two rolls of film. She changed shirts in front of him, and also posed topless.

On March 10, he got her again, and they went to a house - she didn't know whose - where there were three guys and two girls, and shot still more photos, in multiple tops, and topless as well. Polanski said he was going to call Jack Nicholson and ask if he could shoot at his house, as the light was getting too dim.

At Nicholson's house, there was a woman with two dogs. After a little bit, Samantha said she was thirsty. The refrigerator was "full of juice and wine and soda and all this stuff." Polanski removed a bottle of champagne, asked the woman if it was OK, and poured three glasses, one for each of them. The woman drank half a glass and left, saying she had to go to work, and there were just the two of them in the house. They took pictures outdoors by the pool, and then some inside, by the patio door.

Behind A Lamp

Some of the pictures were of her, nude, standing behind a lamp. She donned a blue dress, and they took a few photographs in the kitchen. Polanski showed her Nicholson's Jacuzzi, which was just outside the bedroom door.

They called her mother. Mama asked if she was all right, and she said yes. Mama asked if she wanted Mama to come pick her up, and she said no. After hanging up, Roman fetched a Quaalude, broken into three parts. Roman took one part, offered her some as well. She took it. Why? "I think I must have been pretty drunk, or else I wouldn't have." This was a 13-year-old speaking before a grand jury, and from the transcript, it sounds like a kid trying to shift any blame away from herself.

She had something to eat, then they went to the Jacuzzi. She took off her blue dress and said she was going to wear her panties, but Roman told her to take them off as well. He took some more photos, then said there wasn't enough light. He went into the bathroom, came out unclothed, and climbed into the Jacuzzi with her.

She Had Asthma

She said she had asthma, and wanted to get out. She put on her panties and wrapped a towel around herself. He tried to get her into the pool, but she demurred. He got her into the bedroom, and she asked to go home, for her asthma medicine. He said he would take her home soon. He kissed her. She said she wanted to get her medicine. You'll be better soon. No, I won't, I need my medicine. I'll take you home soon, he said, and he started performing cunnilingus on her, apparently poorly.

He inserted his penis in her vagina, and started asking questions. Was she on the pill? No. When did she last have her period? She wasn't sure. Would you want me to go in through your back? No. "Oh, I won't come inside you, then." Then he lifted her up, and inserted his penis in her rectum and proceeded with anal intercourse.

She hadn't known there was anyone else there. A woman knocked on the door, "Roman, are you in there?" and he spoke through the door, then came back and climaxed in Samantha's butt. She got dressed, and went out to the living room.

The woman was out there. "Are you the girl Roman is taking pictures of?" Samantha said "Yes" and walked out to the car.

It Wasn't New To Her

She told the grand jury that she'd had alcohol before, and had Quaaludes before, but never together, and she felt uncoordinated and clumsy, as if under the influence. She'd had sex twice before.

Although having sex with someone who is drunk legally qualifies as rape, Polanski negotiated a deal where he would plead guilty to statutory rape, and no time in stir beyond the 45 days he'd already spent in jail during court-ordered psych evaluation. It appeared, though, that the court was not going to accept the plea agreement. That strikes me as eminently unfair, once you've accepted the plea; equivalent to negotiating down the price of a sandwich after you've already eaten it.

View From The Cheap Seats

If I'd been sitting on the jury, based on the grand jury testimony, I'm not sure I'd have convicted Polanski of rape. It wasn't violent, although there was some element of force involved. Rape is a sexual assault, but it appears that Roman was not trying to hurt her, but to pleasure her. Furthermore, I think that statutory rape should be limited to sex with someone who hasn't yet reached puberty, not some arbitrary age of consent. There's no question that Polanski was a jerk, but there aren't enough jails in the entire country to jail all jerks.

Polanski should have shown up for sentencing, but if the court was going to reject the plea deal, it should reject the plea as well. What I think should happen is that Polanski be brought back to court for sentencing, and his lawyer should demand withdrawal of the guilty plea, since it was contingent on an agreement the court had refused to approve. What's left is to prosecute Polanski again for the crime - and since Samantha is no longer willing to cooperate in the prosecution, the trial will be short and result in an acquittal.

A Prediction

The court, however, will come down on him - hard - for his international flight to avoid punishment. I suspect that will be reversed on appeal, but that's not clear. Shouldn't the right to resist injustice be one of the unenumerated rights guaranteed by the 9th Amendment? If so, it would be improper to punish him for his self-imposed exile. A US Supreme Court justice opined this summer that it's perfectly legal to punish someone with the death penalty, even though that person be innocent. And they'll surely deny Polanski bail during the proceedings.

Justice is difficult, even when the people involved are all clear-headed and competent. In this case, however, they failed to meet that standard by a wide margin. There's already been a lot of pain for both Mr. Polanski and his victim, and there soon will be more, but the case appears to promise lots of enjoyment for gawkers in the months to come.

Other Bloggers On Related Topics:
Charles Manson - grand jury - Jack Nicholson - Jacuzzi - photography - Quaalude - rape - Roman Polanski - Samantha Jane Gailey - statutory rape - topless - transcript