Patterico's Pontifications

10/3/2009

Polanski Agreed to Pay Victim $500,000

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:52 am

From the L.A. Times:

Roman Polanski agreed to pay the victim in his child-sex case at least $500,000 as part of a civil settlement, but then failed to live up to the terms of the agreement, according to court filings reviewed Friday.

The documents leave open the question of whether the fugitive filmmaker has ever paid the money he promised in the confidential 1993 settlement with Samantha Geimer, but a change in her approach to Polanski in subsequent years suggests they may have resolved the issue.

I note this only because I have spoken with numerous people who didn’t even realize that there had been a civil suit. Frankly, I had always assumed the amount had been higher.

14 Responses to “Polanski Agreed to Pay Victim $500,000”

  1. Good for the LA Times for doing some real reporting.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  2. I liked their piece about Polanski’s lawyers role in setting off this whole fiasco.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  3. Speaking of the LA Times – Can someone explain to me why this “Dumadel” guys gets so much of their attention?

    lee (86706b)

  4. What is interesting is that this whole thing happened in 1977, yet the settlement wasn’t made until 1993. What happened in those intervening 16 years? Why did it take so long?

    JVW (d1215a)

  5. heh I assumed he had actually paid the victim (which according to the article, he hasn’t, or had not last they heard)

    Lord Nazh (8d682b)

  6. 4. … yet the settlement wasn’t made until 1993. What happened in those intervening 16 years? Why did it take so long?

    According to the LAT the suit was filed in 1988 so that is part of the difference. And she was 13 at the time and perhaps had to be 18 or 21 to sue. Or maybe she was hoping to settle without suing.

    James B. Shearer (72814c)

  7. It sounds like a deal and might have occurred with a few hints from the lawyers that she would press for his arrest since he had “violated” the plea deal. He paid and she then dropped all interest in his extradition.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  8. This means about as much as Dan Rather’s exclusive on George W. Bush.

    I’m sorry, did repeat myself?

    Ag80 (4254fd)

  9. […] at Patterico’s we discover that Polanski may not have even paid the civil settlement.  The […]

    Gazzer’s Gabfest » How to win friends and influence people…Polanski-style. (b98ad6)

  10. Dear Mr. Frey

    Deputy District DA in Los Angeles? Where do you find the free time…to blog about Polanski… or IS this little recreation…. all part of the job? Big Election year coming up, right?

    Shouldn’t you be making sure justice is served through a just system? Justice for the victim and Polanski cannot be won under a corrupt justice system then and now.

    I believe, two kinds of people when it comes to crime and punishment. There are those who understand that we are a nation of laws, and that our system does not serve vengeance but justice. And those who are like something out of the Old Testament, eye for an eye righteous, lying, arrogant fumers. I like to divide these groups into educated and ignorant

    David Wells did not lie in the documentary. The interview was done years ago according to the director. He signed a release. The film premiered in 2008 worldwide. No word from Wells on his big lie until now? Me thinks Cooley is worried he will not get elected again. Clearly the LAJD has no respect for its own system but as we know corruption breeds corruption. The fact that the majority of the PRESS is IGNORING a corrupt judge in 1977 and now a corrupt DA speaks volumes. The question is how much are you paying David Wells or at least tell us what he’s getting of it or were threats involved?

    RE: Probation Transcripts: So many case facts have been spinned by your pal Marcia Clark, I cannot even begin to list them all. However the documentary: Roman Polanski: Wanted & Desired interviews MAJOR participants from the case and witnesses to Rittenband’s judicial misconduct who outline this heinous conduct in the film. How interesting that the PRESS also FAILS to mention that Rittenband asked a news reporter (as well as David Wells ) “What he should do with Polanski?” Ethics Violation…big time.

    Also, please note that David Wells provided way too many SPECIFIC details. Lying? I don’t think so…. Let’s see if his current statement will hold up under a polygraph test, shall we?

    Also, how interesting that the prosecutor Roger Gunson, says in the film ( paraphrase ) ” had he been in Polanski’s shoes, he would have fled as well.” Yes, the highly respected MORMON PROSECUTOR!!!!. The Judicial misconduct was indeed….that bad…. Oh and did I mention the 2 PRETEND hearings that Rittenband concocted? The list of misconduct and ethics violations goes on and on and on.

    How interesting that the PRESS neglects to mention… that Rittenband was removed from the case.

    The LAJD says its been trying to get Polanski for 30 years. When questioned, they immediately scramble to produce a one page press release which they post on their website with some dates and blurbs over the years…. Anybody can write a press release. Let’s see the original papers.

    Seems evident that a corrupt justice department and a biased sensationalist News Media walk hand in hand these days… After all, an election year is coming up! Is it not?

    No wonder Polanski fled. Anyone in their right mind would and should.

    The question is… how can you can you condemn his corruption when you cannot condemn your own. What type of justice is corruption, dishonesty and finally hypocrisy ? It is he who thinks they are above the law, not Mr. Polanski.

    Kitty Kat (4f600a)

  11. […] posting on this now, I have decided to approve a handful of them. You can read the comment here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. That’s eight instances of the same comment […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Associate Producer of Polanski Documentary Spams This Blog With Multiple Anonymous Comments Attacking Me? (e4ab32)

  12. “David Wells did not lie in the documentary”

    Except he did. He came on the John and Ken Show (at kfi 640 AM) and admitted that he LIED. He was apparently told the film would only open outside of the US, and lied for the heck of it. He as incentive to come clean now, since Polanski might be extradited here.

    Why is the prosecutor’s comment relevant? If I was in Polanski’s shoes, I might be tempted to run too. So?

    lee (86706b)

  13. It seems quite probable that the reason Polanski’s victim is now saying that she doesn’t want this case pursued and that she has forgiven him is because making statements like that was part of the civil case settlement.

    Hank Archer (d8389b)

  14. […] see, large portions of this comment are identical to the comment that she spammed at my site (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » More Evidence That an Associate Producer of the Polanski Documentary Spammed Anonymous Comments Attacking Me (e4ab32)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.6599 secs.