Some people’s children should never, ever, be allowed on a computer!
Over on the infamous IMDB page for Roman Polanski, someone it appears, has much too much time on their hands. This person whose name is Lazarusryu, has undertaken this extraordinary task of analyzing my rape as I reported in this post: POLANSKI: NO HARD FEELINGS PT 2. Apparently, according to this analysis, I was not a rape victim, merely a confused, nymphet wanting to have sex with an older man who I apparently, led to do this to me with my feminine wyles. If only I had that kind of power, I’d have had every single man I’d ever dreamed of having. According to this poor unfortunate Lazarusryu, I dressed provocatively and lured ‘Mick’ (a psuedonym) into my lair and forced him to have sex with me to satiate my lusts and perversions. Problem with that kind of thinking: It’s not true and I have never ever called what happened to me anything else but what it was: RAPE! Samantha Geimer, however, believes she was never harmed, never hurt, and doesn’t call what happened to her as rape. She acts as if it were just a mere walk in the park rather than what should have been one of the most traumatic moments of her then, very young life. For me, my experience was traumatic and left me with sense of violation that lasted for years after that pre-Christmas party of 1977. And my relationship with my family is not as ‘chumy chumy’ as apparently Samantha Geimer’s is with her mother. Apparently also according to Lazy, as I’ve come to call him, does not know the difference between truth and fiction…so I will now attempt to correct his method of thinking.
According to the aforementioned Polanski IMDB message board, the lynchpin in the ‘rape’ argument has something to do with Dr. Larson’s Grand Jury testimony (see page Polanski Pages Larson 107) that there can be no damage from a penis inserting into a rectum considering Geimer testified to having been raped twice by Polanski ‘from behind’. I’ll submit this as proof that it is impossible to enter an anus, one that had not previously been penetrated, without at least some injury. There is a reason why homosexual sex is done with copious lubrication because without it, there is a greater chance of injury in the form of tears, fistulas, and bleeding from those expanding tissues. Now time for a little Biology 101: The muscle contractions that are used to push out feces is there for a reason. These muscles are not supposed to be used to insert, rather to push out. Without a libricated condom or lubrication more than spit on a hand or vaginal secretions, it is impossible to any kind of anal sex without allowing for some distension in the oraface, however, when Larson conducted his examination of Geimer he found no tearing, bruising, tissue distension, hematomas or anything consistent with a double penetration. This was exactly the problem faced by the prosecutor in the McMartin Preschool case in which William Buckey, his mother Peggy McMartin Buckey and others faced over 500 charges in total for crimes stemming from what was called Satanic Sexual Abuse. The children in this case had told tales of Satanic rituals involving the killing of small animals and burials on the property, and any number of invasions. Most of what was told by these children were fanciful of knives and scissors being inserted into their ‘heinies’ and ‘peepees’. What was wrong with that picture was that if such instruments were inserted, there would have certainly been damage of some kind found. None was found and none would be found since the events never happened. It was also found that in preparing these children for testimony the Los Angeles Prosecutor’s Office as well as the Los Angeles Police Department relied on the Children’s Institute International to coax testimony from the children using prodding and persuasion in order to up the ante in terms of the level of abuse alleged. What resulted were techniques used to get the children to make false allegations against the McMartin defendants. Why is this pertinent to the Polanski case? In one of her interviews, Samantha Geimer has admitted to having been coached in terms of her Grand Jury Testimony. Like McMartin, what level of prodding could be associated with her testimony. How much of it was she told to embellish? This coaching she admitted to in the Marina Zenovich documentary ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED & DESIRED. So how much can we rely on in terms of her veracity?
Simply, if a jury were to be charged by the judge, he would have to advise them that if they found any part of a witness’s testimony to be in any way lacking or bad, then they are admonished to render all of it bad or tainted, therefore, dismissive in terms of the veracity of the witness. In Geimer’s case, not only one or two portions of her testimony are problematic, but all of it is. What is also troubling is that in Geimer’s account of having had sexual intercourse twice with two other people, that the Grand Jury wasn’t asking why at least one of the others weren’t indicted as well. Certianly the articles of indicment were against Polanski himself, but the Grand Jury is also impanelled to make suggestions for further investigation on behalf of the prosecutor’s office. That the Grand Jury did not implore Roger Gunson to further his investigation into two more avenues including Geimer’s boyfriend Steve Kronblet as well as the motivations of Susan Gailey in allowing Samantha to go off with not only Polanski, but photographer Sean Kinney in December 1976 is indeed problematic. I’ve been told by at least three to four other people on the IMDB Message Board for Sharon Tate that Roman Polanski committed a crime. If Polanski committed a crime, then didn’t Kronblet? If their standard is to indict Polanski completely for his alleged crimes, then why isn’t Kronblet similarly guilty? My guess is it has something do with a little sniggly thing Americans are known for, and that is their “US against THEM” mentality. No one of them can commit a crime, it’s only those disgusting Europeans and others we think are weird. And to them Polanski is weird and they find it weird that Polanski would want to have sex with a young woman said by Larson to be an “adult female”, yet Kronblet is not guilty and is even dismissed altogether due to the all too real aspect of “US against THEM”. They’d protect their own sooner than admit that there is one standard for others not THEM and another totally for US. That translates into something called xenophobia. Should this be anything new? Not really. Just disappointing. Disappointing in the way that they seem to think that Polanski is some sort of gnarled ogre under a bridge who unless stopped, will come out from under that bridge and assault their young children in the night a la Rumplestilskin.
I’ve been told by Lazy that I cannot converse with anyone in a discussion wihtout ‘trashing’ Geimer. No, I don’t have to ‘trash’ her, she’s done that all by herself with her consistent inconsistencies. You can read all of them here, Anatomy of Lies. The proclivity is to excuse her since she is, after all, the victim. It would be nice if she considered herself a victim. She doesn’t. She doesn’t even call or class what happened to her as rape. Depending on her interview or the day of the week she changes details. Those friends I have trusted to tell my story to, all of them can attest to the fact I have never altered one moment or detail of what happened to me. Yet Geimer seems to leave out things or add things depending on the need for attention. This makes me skeptical of her since as noted above, if I don’t believe one part of her story, I cannot and will not accept any portion of her story or ‘tale’. While I do believe that sex did take place, it wasn’t of the sort that recommended al this handwriging on behalf of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s offiice nor all the abuse hurled at Polanski on these many message boards and comments in blogs. And the other thing ones like Lazy and others cannot even accept is that perhaps there was another motive to Geimer and her mother’s penchant to want this case to “Go Away.” And that is ….
Perjury is essentially telling a lie while under oath. In the court of law, the statute of limitations is ten years from the date of the perjury. Techinically, Geimer is out of the woods as far as being charged so she has no jeopardy to her or her mother if they come out and tell the truth. In fact in this Oprahized world, she’d be lauded as a heroine for having the guts to come forward and tell her story of why she did what she did. However, there is a caveat to that perjury charge. If there is a conspiracy attached to that perjury, then there is a continuation of the perjury and the person can be charged on that aspect. So for those like Lazy who cannot grasp higher concepts. If Geimer lied and it is proven she and her mother conspired to ‘get’ Polanski, then both of them can be charged under conspiracy to lie. Ergo, she gets her arse finally screwed in a way that there would be proof Larson would finally be able to testify to.
So just for you Lazy, I wrote this blog to tell you in short words, hopefully, what the issues in this case are and the ones you like to ignore. And I also love the repeated times I asked you to refute you sent me emails or commented on my blog here to unhide my rape experience to “allow everyone to see what you went through….” Yeah, like I was born yesterday. All comments here are now moderated. For anyone who comments on this post I will allow it through only IF it pertains to discussing this in a rational manner. I will no longer accept abuse and certainly as a rape victim, I will not allow my experience to be used as some sort of ponographic fantasy to concoct things from your own pubertal mind to think you have superiority. I lost one element of my life that night that I swore I’d never lose again. And that thing was power. I have called what happened to me that night rape. I’ve not couched it with anything else due to the necessity to keep up appearances to the contrary. Lazy also uses my admission about my having had an affair with a 51 year-old married man when I was 14 as another ‘notch’ in his demented post that I am somehow not a rape victim due to my aforementioned feminine mystique. Well Lazy fails to grasp the reasons I admitted that, and that was that there seems to be this notion that underaged young women do not have the legal ability to consent to sex with older men. I submit, they can and do. Rape at thirteen has nothing whatsoever to do with reclaiming that part of myself with a man of my choice to what was taken from me the year before. At least I do not hide behind tales of promiscuity and pregnancy to amp up my claims of being ‘hurt’ or ‘wounded’. I own my reclamation. And that’s what I did. I reclaimed my life after the incident six months after my rape. I had to. Unlike Geimer who constantly changes her story and her victimhood depending on her level of publicity.
She is not a person to warrant sympathy or empathy. And what is particularly bothersome is Polanski’s current statement of saying Geimer is a victim of his as well as that of the press. Why it bothers me is that I feel he’s capitulated to the political correctness of the age. The Hugh Grant moment of going on The Leno Show to admit he had sex in a car with a prostitute to seek some sort of cathartic forgiveness. I don’t get that and if I have any anger toward Polanski it’s that he is giving into that notion he needs to seek some absolution in this manner. To me he got it when the extradiction warrant was denied. I had hoped that irreverence he showed when he finally accepted his LIfteime Achivement award from teh Zurich film festival in 2010 would be the final statement on that ‘unfortunate’ period of his life. I had hoped that was the Roman Polanski that would be with us until the end of his days. I don’t want a contrite or begging Roman Polanski. I want the one who has that “Fuck you” attitude toward those who want to continue to clamour for his death at the hands of Hitler’s war machine. I want the Roman Polanski who has survived at all costs just to piss those rabid Sharon Tate fans off who think he’s beneath their contempt. And who are those rabid Sharon Tate fans? The ones who think that Roman abused Sharon in such a fashion that it rendered her completely incapable to chose him as her worthy consort. Ah the dashing Jay Sebring, her Knight errant of that night in August 1969. The one who took himself out of the fight early on all because he had to act the part of a hero. Now that statement should by no means intimate I don’t care for Jay or what happened to him that night. On the contrary. I have deep empathy for Sebring and for what happened that night, I just don’t have any consideration for all those rabid Sharon fans who think that it’s perfectly okay to shit on Polanski and his sufferings in a dismissive fashion. Hero worship is a a bitch. Do I hero worshp Polanski? Certainly not.
My level of who I chose to spend my time with in terms of watching their films or listening to their music is based on whether I like their politics, mode of thought and who they are. I am a fellow Leo like Polanski and to a certain degree, I see a lot of myself in him…in his struggle for perfection in his art. Am I so enamoured of him I fail to see his flaws? No. Not at all. i know he’s a fuck up. But I like that about a person. I don’t like ‘perfect’ people. I like people who are always struggling to find that better person, and I find that in Polanski. For anyone who cannot find any level of compassion in their hearts for him or his tragedies just shows how limited they are as human beings. And that they cannot see the obvious flaws in Geimer’s assertions and not have any questions about her or her mother’s roles in this 33 year travesty is just as the title says, Astonunsing!