Polanski victim Samantha Gailey Grand Jury Testimony Reenacted Part 2/2

[asm6ekyu]

that's sooo boring to hear. Cheap sound effects...lol If you want the facts .. you would be rather incline to search on the net for the blog named " Roman Polanski: The Ballad of Contradictions "

[spike1138]

She wasn't a virgin, she was 2 weeks away from turning 14, she had a 17 year old boyfriend at the time, she wasn't the one who made the accusation and didn't want to go to the police and the medical report produced in court says that there were traces of semen in the vagina and rectum but NO blood... not a single tear or injury to either orrafice AT ALL from the entire incident. When in the history of the world has there ever been a rape with a forensics report like that?

[LadyAnura]

@spike1138 What does being "two weeks away from turning 14" have to do with this? Is 14 really that much better than 13? And anyways, the legal age of consent in California in 1977 was 16. Also, what on earth does being a virgin or having a boyfriend have to do with all this? If she was a huge slut, would it make it better? So what if she wasn't a virgin - it doesn't make what happened "okay." He drugged a 13-year-old girl and had sex with her. Even if she "liked" it, it would still be rape

[DJCW]

If anyone violated my children they would never see the inside of a courtroom!! That much I can guarantee!!

ALL NONCES SHOULD BE PUT ON A ISLAND AND NUKED!!!!!

[DJCW]

@mimigeorgesm @F1brawfa ARE straight NONCES!!! Are you parents? You really should be sterilised!!!

ANYONE that thinks or tries to condone that 13 y.o girls are ready for sexual, drug fueled encounters with an ADULT should be HANGED!!!

What sickening and disgraceful comments!!

[spike1138]

@DJCW No one's condoning it, but equally no-one's organising a witch-hunt or passing judgement based on their instincts as a parent in taking precedence over the facts of the case. You think all child molesters are sick freaks who should be kept away from decent people, castrated and painfully killed and I agree with you (at least about the first part). I'm sure you'd murder anyone you thought abused your own children and I wouldn't stop you. But isn't it important to show that he's guilty 1st?

[DJCW]

@spike1138 I was referring to the comments made by mimigeorgesn and F1brawfa.

But in your attempt to rationalise a warped and contorted mind you forgot about the most important parts of this sordid tale.

The victims and that is who I emphasise with.

As for as the perpetrator is concerned nothing short of death would appeal more to me. They have destroyed the life of a mere child forcefully, brutally and sometimes fatally causing complete family meltdowns.

How can justice appease that?

[mimigeorgesm]

13 year old OK! so virgin i guess?? where is the blood ?? if she had sex at that time , she lost her virginity..and if she had anal sex , it would have other thing in her underwear ..like shit...is'nt it

[LadyAnura]

@mimigeorgesm NO, she was not a virgin. She had a boyfriend and had had sex before. However, whether or not she was a virgin has NO influence on whether or not it's rape. Many rape victims have had sex before! Also, he DRUGGED her. A drugged person can't possibly be expected to properly consent to sex - and besides, she was a CHILD. Also, they found semen in both places.

[spike1138]

@LadyAnura They did, and he never denied having sex with her, he only denied raping her, something which the foresnics not only fail to confirm but actually contradict - over the course of what seemed to have been a good few hours of sex (both kinds) in different rooms in the house, when the girl was examined, the medical report states that no trace of blood and not a single tear or injury was found on her, whichthe Doctor noted as being inconsistent. Rapes with no blood or tears are unheard of.

[spike1138]

@LadyAnura They did, and he never denied having sex with her, he only denied raping her, something the foresnics not only fail to confirm but actually contradict - over the course of what seemed to have been a good few hours of sex (both kinds) in different rooms in the house, when the girl was examined, the medical report states that no trace of blood and not a single tear or injury was found on her, whichthe Doctor noted as being inconsistent. Rapes with no blood or tears are unheard of.

[spike1138]

@LadyAnura They did, and he never denied having sex with her, he only denied raping her, something the foresnics not only fail to confirm but actually contradict - over the course of what seemed to have been a good few hours of sex (both kinds) in different rooms in the house, when the girl was examined, the medical report states that no trace of blood and not a single tear or injury was found on her, whichthe Doctor noted as being inconsistent. Rapes with no blood or tears are unheard of.

[mimigeorgesm]

@LadyAnura she had sex before..well well she is no child anymore

[F1brawfa]

yea right no no i have astma buahaha she lied cos mama was hearing its not Romans fault the girl was a slut its not like she was a virgin im 100% sure she wanted to fuck with him some 13 year old give headds in malls for cool cloaths and that is their choice her mother shuld never let her go alone !!

[LadyAnura]

@F1brawfa "It's not Roman's fault the girl was a slut" - Are you SERIOUS??? So if a "slut" gets raped, it's "okay"? How on earth do you know she was a "slut"? She had a BOYFRIEND. They had had SEX. You're just making shit up because you want to protect a pedophile!

[spike1138]

@LadyAnura I completely agree with you that it's not okay, but that's one of the ironies of this case - had he been convicted for Rape of a Minor , the maximum jail term was 15-20years. It was a misdemeanor to have consensual sex with someone 14-16 or a felony if age gap is more than 3 years. Her boyfriend was 17 and she was 2 weeks off of 14, which makes the boyfriend guilty of the same felony and the same penalty were her Mom or a teacher to allege they had had sex consensually - it's farcical

[spike1138]

@LadyAnura Incidentally, I don't myself believe that she was a slut by any stretch of the imagingation I harshly condemn who would say anything of the kind, but I equally don't think he's a "monster" or a "predator" or a pedophile or a child molester either and medical opinnion is with me on this. Most people's sexuality develops ages 12-15 and it's not thought abnormal to be attracted to people your own age. If you really think it's abnomal, try typing "Barely legal" into Google.

[sohooded]

pOLANSKI DESERVES TO GO TO PRISON!!!!!!!

[tyciol]

The voice alteration sounds so strange with this.

[boliboy2299]

she looks like 17. I woud only shag her if she was virgin

[moulinrouged]

she was coerced all the way. 13 years old is still a child. period.

[tyciol]

@moulinrouged Legally a child. But no, not "period". She's pubescent, the colloquial use of child refers to prepubescents.

[besebuble2]

44 old man having sex with a 13 year old woman means he is sick, mentally sick no more, who is the adult,? what does mean be adult? bullshit he is a pervert

[tyciol]

@besebuble2 Whether or not he's got some perverted tastes isn't the issue here. The thing is, this interest is biologically encoded, so calling it a sickness seems odd to me.

[moulinrouged]

@tyciol Actaully, it is the issue here, not some bullshit theory you;'ve pulled out of yor ass. What have you been reading ? "Convenient theories for you" monthly ? It's biologically encoded to pound people over the head if they piss you off but it's still illegal.

[moulinrouged]

@tyciol Sickness is biological,smart ass.

[besebuble2]

no matter what...child or teen whatever 13 years never will be 44 years old!!! This 44 years old man is a sick and pervert...he is not a child neither teen he was an ADULT!!!!! a fucking sick adult!!!!!

[wallstreetfox]

They forgot he did not seek her out. He was on assignment from Vogue magazine. His wife had been murdered in one of the most famous events other than a war. No one knows what this did to him. Even a 13 year old would feel sympathy for him. She wants him free today. I don't hear anything about how she knows his wife was murdered. She says she was afraid etc. Of a man whose wife was murdered? Go ahead ask any 13 year old if they would be scared of a guy whose wife was murdered.

[moulinrouged]

@wallstreetfox He was looking for another nastasia kinsky.This little girl did not seek him out to be raped.Are you implying that the only way that Polanski could make peace w/his wife's brutal death was date only very young women that he could use w/o getting hurt himself ?

She does not want him free today.She said for a very long time that she just wanted to let it go and get on with her life. Once she got on the stand to testify, she denounced him and said he deserved severe punishment.

[klabaternik]

no co? fajna dupa :D

[besebuble2]

A man 44 with a child 13 years no matter what country ....is a fucking shit nobody should discuss, he is sick as all who pretends is normal! SHIT WITH hEDONIST AND SADISM MEN IN THE WORLD

[Tabulatory]

It's not normal but 13 is not a child anymore. Can be very seductive and provocative. it's a young girl - too young for sex, you are right, but not a child anymore. It's no sense to discuss when it concerns a child, but it can be discussed when it concernes a teen, cuz a child is not a sexual individual; a teen - is. All is needed is balance and ratio.

[xValetinax]

What makes you think a child is not sexual? Plenty of kids think about sex and have sexual feelings. And yes 13 is still a child. Besides no matter what age she was she says she didn't consent.

[Tabulatory]

@xValetinax Hi. What I meant by "sexual" was one that creates sexual relationships with others. A child may think and feel sexually long before puberty time, but they don't create erotic relationships with other children, so they are not "sexual". Teens are sexual because they start relations with boy/girlfriends that are erotic (even if not sexual yet). And no 13 is not a child anymore. It's a young girl who is still too immature to start sexual relations, but not a child anymore.

[xValetinax]

Hi Tabulatory. I still don't completely agree with you but I understand the point you are making :)

[tyciol]

@Tabulatory Tab there's some sense in what you say but I feel the need to point out, preteens and/or prepubescent children may create sexual relationships with others. It's not common, and in some cases it may be due to reacting sexual abuse (though I would not assume it was in all cases) therefore it's not good to stereotype. I see the truth you confer here in that Sam was a pubescent teenager who had already hooked up with a boyfriend so the labels being used aren't entirely accurate.

[moulinrouged]

@tyciol Creating a sexual relationship of your own choice at any age is not the same as being raped. Are you alpedophile ? B/c you talk like one.

[tyciol]

@moulinrouged My guess is you lack any thorough psychological familiarity to be able to make a diagnosis on the basis of comments. I did not equivocate creating relationships with being raped, therefore you're straw-manning me. I hope that this is unintentional on your part, because if so that can be cleared up. I do not appreciate the ad hominem, please do not sink to that low.

[moulinrouged]

@tyciol You know nothing about me or anyone else here. And pedophile do indeed talk like pedophiles. All sex offenders have speech mannerisms that give them away, eventually.

Your pseudo-intellectual claptrap impresses no one but yourself, sick-o.

[tyciol]

@moulinrouged You are correct Moulin, and I agree with you: I don't 'know' anything about you. That's why I said "I guess".

I disagree with your assertion that criminals or paraphiles have identifiable speech mannerisms though. If you believe research indicates this then you can point me to a study I can read to educate myself further to be brought up to your level.

My posing as an intellectual impresses lots of people :) It's very entertaining since it's quite clear I'm utterly moronic.

[moulinrouged]

@tyciol =You know yourself so well---not.All you have to do to find out how paraphiliacs give themselves away by their speech patterns is by reading

books and articles about paraphiliacs. Look them up for yourself---the ones by CRC Press are particularly good. Yes, most paraphiliacs are careful what they say when they are around folx who would disagree w/their slant on sex but not all of 'em are.If you were willing to learn something that doesn't suit your agenda, you'd've found out already.

[tyciol]

@moulinrouged There are things about vocabulary which might increase my suspicion, but there is not something I could use to certainly reach an absolute conclusion about someone based on their speech, no.

[moulinrouged]

@tyciol =You don't seem to believe that rape happens unless the rapist admits to it. That makes you a part of the problem.

[tyciol]

@moulinrouged Your summary is incorrect. Rape can certainly happen without the rapist admitting to it. Probably in the majority of cases they do not admit to it. Since your statement supposedly summarizing my beliefs is at odds with what they actually are, this is what is termed a "straw man argument".

Please make a more realistic analysis.

[D3TOX3R]

This might have been sexxxy had they used a womans voice for the girl... Also the guy reads for shit; just like this nimrod named Daryl I had in my American Lit class in Junior College... I used to wanna smack that bastard...

[and501481]

tez bym ja przeleciał

[klabaternik]

haha XD 10/10

[TheOfc100]

FAKE

[Shostahs]

Why is the part when he begins to have sex with her and asks her if she is on the pill deleted? It would appear from her full testimony he stops having vaginal sex with her once he finds she is not on the pill;also can not tell him when her period was: he also enquires about in her testimony. Why if she was so afraid did she not bolt when the Lady came to the door after he stopped having sex the first time? Yes 13 but how many times has this happened to others and no big witch hunt ensuing?

[xValetinax]

How do you know she had a chance to run away? He might have been standing in front of the only door.She also might have been frightened of what would happen if she tried to run.

If they had consensual sex then why did she lie about having asthma because she didn't want to get in the hot tub with him. He admits that she lied about having asthma. A strange thing to do unless you are trying to find an excuse to get away from someone.

[wallstreetfox]

Listen to her "testamony" it's all over the place. She had been drunk before and defines oral sex a "cudlyness". Weird. I know what is going on. You may not believe it. His own movie came true.

[xValetinax]

So because she's been drunk before and didn't know the right word for cunnilingus she wasn't raped?

Because his wife was murdered that means he is incapable of committing a terrible crime or that she wouldn't be scared of him? Ask any 13 year old if they would be afraid of an older man coming onto them who they told to stop but continued anyway. Most would whether his wife had been murdered or not.

[obscuremedia]

@wallstreetfox I agree with you on this. Nowhere too does she state he raped her. No where.

[hectorbolshevik]

@obscuremedia: Exactly! Very well put. Samantha was even staunchly opposed to Polanski's arrest. It's funny that the system can try youth as adults whenever it suits them; but then cries and moans when certain youth have consensual sex with adults.

[tyciol]

@obscuremedia Be that as it may, she does claim she said "no" and "stop". It's possible that he may not have heard her though, as I have not heard Polanski acknowledge hearing these words.

I mean, maybe she wasn't speaking audibly or slurring? She mentions saying it during the oral sex and I mean... how much could you hear during oral sex on a girl, especially if maybe she was giving him earmuffs.

[moulinrouged]

@tyciol She was being raped. Rapists do not take requests from their victims. He's not going to stop---that's waht makes it rape..You talk like a sex offender.

[tyciol]

@moulinrouged Sex offenders do not talk any specific way, I suggest you clear your head of such distortions. What is clear about this case based on both testimonies is that Polanski had sex with a minor, and he probably knew she was one. What is not clear is if this was rape. Base on her testimony it is, based on his it was not. Therefore, I can't conclude either way. The medical examination does not indicate force was used. Polanski does not mention her saying no and denies giving her wine/drug

[moulinrouged]

@tyciol =I suggest you never suggest anything to me ever.

Sex w/a minor is rape. Period. Judges and juries make decisions based on conflicting testimony every day. You're full of it. I suggest that you drop dead before you hurt someone.

[obscuremedia]

@tyciol Most of what she said in her Grand Jury Testimony is not backed up by the evidence both the doctor who examined her didn't find and the CSU tech who performed the scientific examinations. There were not fluids on or in her. No saliva, no sperm no nothing denoting either oral or anal sex.

[tyciol]

@obscuremedia I haven't located the full doctor's report so I'm not sure. I remember in his appeal his lawyer wrote there being no rectal tearing or anything to indicate it.

I find it hard to believe that Polanski would plead to anything at all if nothing happened though... it seems possible that they had consensual oral/sexual but I think that part about the anal was likely made up. More than likely she wasn't looking when he pulled out and it got on the outside rather than putting it in.

[moulinrouged]

@tyciol =Polanski himself wrote in his autobio that there was anal penetration.

Your psuedo-intelectualising reveals nothing about anything except your shallow interior life.

[obscuremedia]

@moulinrouged Wrong. On page 393, Polanski says she spread herself and he entered her...but not anally. Polanski has never ever been known for being into anal sex. Never. He also says she was not entirely unresponsive.

[moulinrouged]

@obscuremedia -You and I must be reading 2 different editions.How do you know what Polanski is into,other then little girls?So what if he said she was 'not entirely unresponsive' ? That is so obscure; it could mean anything.He's going to read anything he wants into how she reacted, as you have read what suits into what he wrote.Rapists regularly convince themselves that their victims either enjoyed themselves or just pretended not to.

[obscuremedia]

@tyciol I have the Grand Jury testimony ALL OF IT not just what the smoking gun wants you to see. Dr. Edward Larson reported no anal tearing, no bruising, no vaginal brusing or tearing and nothing indicating any kind of sexual intercourse had taken place. Anal and vaginal slides taken at the time and passed onto CSU tech Lee Mann showed no fluids of any kind, no saliva, no sperm. This is all in the grand jury transcripts.

[obscuremedia]

@tyciol I have the Grand Jury testimony ALL OF IT not just what the smoking gun wants you to see. Dr. Edward Larson reported no anal tearing, no bruising, no vaginal brusing or tearing and nothing indicating any kind of sexual intercourse had taken place. Anal and vaginal slides taken at the time and passed onto CSU tech Lee Mann showed no fluids of any kind, no saliva, no sperm. This is all in the grand jury transcripts.

[moulinrouged]

@obscuremedia -how did you get a copy of the grand jury testimony ?

[obscuremedia]

@tyciol As far as what Polanski plead to, did you see the Zenovich documentary? All involved including the prosecutor Roger Gunson all said that any and everything that happened in Rittenband's chambers and courtroom was scripted. Polanski had no alternative. Plus the fact that he was told pleading guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor would be straight probation and a fine...just like everyone else the previous year had been charged. Polanski was an exception to that.

[moulinrouged]

@oscuremedia-I saw the documentary. No, it does not show that eveything that happened in chamber's was scripted,quite the opposite.That is a laughable conclusion.What was shown was how the judge dictated what he wanted said to the press.Polanski had lots of alternatives. too.He was given so much leeway during the case, he ended up making himself look bad.You are an unreliable witness, both to the auto-bio and the documentary.

[tyciol]

@moulinrouged I don't think he claimed reliability, he said he read them. If we suspect he's wrong we could always check them out ourselves. It's not as if widespread publications rely on witnesses, lol

[tyciol]

@obscuremedia I haven't seen the full documentary yet, no. I wasn't aware of it all being scripted, I know that there was a transcript... alternatives do always exist but it did seem like he was being coached and not entirely sure about the details of what was being discussed.