Read this:

The 34 year conspiracy that’s keeping Polanski out of the country

by lazarusryu 15 hours ago (Tue Dec 13 2011 10:58:45)
UPDATED Tue Dec 13 2011 11:03:00

Whenever Polanski’s case is brought up or whenever people inquire as to why he would return to America, Polanski apologists tend to refer to a conspiracy revolving around the 1977 case.

Now, I never really get into any conspiracies and generally think they’re bullsh_t since they mostly rely on mass assumptions and the cherry-picking of evidence; especially with the Polanski conspiracy. But today, I’m willing to have an open mind and I have some questions regarding the conspiracy.

Let’s just say every bit of the conspiracy is true. Alright. So why’s Polanski so afraid of Judge that’s been dead for almost eight years and a woman (Who supposedly set up Polanski) who had publicly forgiven him? It seems very much like an irrational fear even if the Judge wasn’t dead. And if he’s worried about a judge wanting to “finish what the other judge began”, that would just make him paranoid and maybe even a little insane.

Sorry, it’s his supporters who make these claims as to why he won’t return, I’m just stating what others general think of these excuses; so please don’t bite my head off or gang-up on me for having questions or thoughts that are not your own. And please, Polanski fans, don’t jump into insults or patronizing replies. Try and be civil, for once, with people who don’t share the same option as you. Thank you.

Now, re-read the boldened portion…..

See, this is my buddy Lazy trying to be funny. It seems as if he still hasn’t quite grasped the smaller points of the Polanski case. And at this point, I’m not sure he ever will. Why don’t I hold out any hope for Lazy? Read my response to him:

by prometheus1816 9 hours ago (Tue Dec 13 2011 17:49:07)
Try and be civil, for once, with people who don’t share the same option as you. Thank you.

Yeah there Lazy, like you’ve EVER been civil to anyone on this matter. And let’s not even mention how you mocked my rape and continue to mock it. So trying to be civil with you is like asking me to believe you. Not likely unless an apology is in order.

Now his response back to me:

by lazarusryu 6 hours ago (Tue Dec 13 2011 20:51:43)
UPDATED Tue Dec 13 2011 21:43:03

In other words, you’ve got nothing and have no answer for my question.

Oh and you’re a supposed rape victim who has less evidence that her rape even happened than Geimer, yet you’ve dedicated so much time into bashing her. That’s comedy gold right there, so sorry that you can’t see the funny, honey.

And FYI, I never made a single insult until the one I debate with begins insulting. So yeah, if you or any other Polanski apologist has a problem when I insult them, they can just go ahead and blame themselves, you more especially; you seem to have such a natural condescending tone in everything you write that it’s sickening.

And yet, another response on another thread with my response to someone else included for clarity (the text included in the italics are from a poster on the Polanski IMDB board by the name of :

by lazarusryu 6 hours ago (Tue Dec 13 2011 20:48:11)
UPDATED Tue Dec 13 2011 20:49:15

by – prometheus1816 on Tue Dec 13 2011 17:29:36

by sfmar 1 day ago (Mon Dec 12 2011 16:10:13)

Your revised/expanded bio:

You know my life is really complex. You know how a normal person gets up…rants and raves about Polanski and goes downstairs and…rants and raves about Polanski, eats breakfast…and rants and raves about Polanski, kisses somebody goodbye, and…rants and raves about Polanski, goes to a job, and…rants and raves about Polanski, you know?

You really need to get a better life, you know?

The Wicked: Think like me or I’ll demonize you!
Isn’t that pretty much what you do to anyone who disagrees with you on this issue?

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Lazy seems to think that his and only his opinion matters and refuses to read the proof supplied to him on this case. I’ve tried to be civil, but Lazy is just plain Lazy.

Coming from a person who’s dedicated entire websites, blogs, and online profiles to defending Polanski and thrashing Geimer AND thrashes anyone who doesn’t share your opinions, that’s pretty funny

For anyone who doesn’t believe me, here’s one of her sites. You’ll notice that she’s dedicated some of it to sh_t talk about me too lol:

So now the kicker here. Lazy has in his signature section of his posts this little treasure:

The Insane: Think like me or I’ll kill you!

The Wicked: Think like me or I’ll demonize you!

First of all Lazy, to disabuse you of some FACTS here. That word I know escapes you and your so-called civility.

1) I have only one blog on the Polanski issue and it’s this one. the other blogs are from people, not me, who have done extensive research beyond mine in this case and have put together an exhaustive and dedicated response to all the whacknuts who seem to think that Polanski either “got away with it” or “raped a fragile, delicate little dolly carrying virgin”. Those blogs are listed in my blogroll on either the left or right depending on what theme I’ve created or uploaded. So check them out. All of which you’ll see are from people who were either intimately involved in the case, such as Richard Brenneman who was a reporter at the time the case was active in the LA Courts, to Barry Dank who writes on sexual polices involving consenting adults and policies that are somewhat archaic in today’s world. The other two are from Jean Melkovsky, an incredibly gifted Russian gentleman who managed to do what I could not. And that was sum up the case and Samantha Geimer’s endless and evolving litany of lies. Thanks Jean for that work of art. The last one is Novalis Lore who did the Herculean task of breaking the Polanski case down to its bones and making heads and tails out of the morass the Polanski case became and is still continuing to be. Novalis, I am humbled at your efforts.

2) Lazy pointed out my so-called tendency to insult instead of conducting the aforementioned so-called “civil” discourse. To note, I have always conducted myself in the way I wish to be treated, with civility and respect. However, when someone so blindly puts their hands over their ears and their eyes in a sort of childish< "I'm not listening...nah, nah, nah, nah" then I refuse to be civil when they have denied all FACTS shown them. Lazy and his types are given FACTS then take on this self-entitled snot-nosed punk ass attitude in terms of calling those of us out who have done the extensive research on this case as “nutjobs” or now here it is, wait for it….POLANSKI APOLOGISTS. No Lazy! What we are are a group of people who want it known what the mainstream press won’t report….THE TRUTH. And when we point out those truths, those of you in the peanut gallery of the Johnnie-Come-Latelies sit there with their smug shitfaced stupidity and then call us names. I’m not entirely sure how long both Jean and Novalis have been with this case, but I’ve been with it since it happened back in 1977. And ones like Brenneman and I have little time or care for those who still continue to beat the “Polanski raped a baby” drum when all FACTS point to something else. There’s only so long we who know this case can tolerate when addressing the continued idiocy of such pupertal minds as the Lazyites who refuse to read what we have spent hours upon hours, or in my case, years upon years, researching. It’s just like saying that anyone who has extensively investigated 9/11 are whacknuts when the call into question the 9/11 Commission’s weighty tome on the events of September 11, 2001. Those who refuse to do the groundwork deserve our rebuke and deserve our backhand when they continually sit there behind their computers, typing endlessly on their keyboards about their version of what happened in the Polanski case despite what the evidence refutes and what Samantha Geimer has told them didn’t happen.

3) This is to Lazy himself. He calls into question my rape story. He continually mocks my story as something of a concocted fantasy unsupported by evidence. Fine. Turnabout is a bitch Lazy. What evidence other than her continued revolving statements has she submitted to support the fantasical tale she told the Grand Jury back in 1977? What evidence does she have that supports that she was actually raped, if evidence of mine is expected? Simply, she has none and she knows it. Lazy seems to have made this personal against me. For some reason, this person saw fit to take what I posted here and turn it into some sort of mockery of a real rape victim’s story. I posted my story in hopes of showing anyone willing to seek it out, the difference between what rape is and what it isn’t. And what it is, simply, is a violation…and I’ve called it nothing but that. Samantha Geimer seems to change her story when it suits her and depending on what talk show or aim she has in getting her story out. It’s called THE HORSE’S MOUTH. In this case, Samantha Geimer’s. Lazy also seems to believe that it’s not somehow appropriate or “okay” to call Samantha out on her mistatements and her myriad of conflicting statements. As if she is some sort of sacred cow that we must raise up and sanctify for her plight. Instead of mocking me Lazy, mock her mockery of extending her fifteen minutes to a 33 year plus campaign of self agrandisment. But then one recognizes one’s own kind in a crowd, right Lazy? You’re just like Geimer in a way. The constant need to flail your arms around to say, “Notice me. Notice me. Notice MEEEEEEEEEEE!” So in future, when you’re expecting someone to treat you with respect, then the same should be expected of you and for you to do the one thing you Polanski haters and Geimer appologists seem to not be able to do: LISTEN. That’s all. It’s that simple.

And what “online profiles” have I dedicated to defending Polanski? Talk about making stuff up. If you’re talking about my nicknames on the various message boards or blog postings, I seem to recall I’ve only two that I’ve created to do so. My Prometheus1816 nic on IMDB and other places, and Samskara. So I don’t hide behind anything. I speak my mind on the FACTS I’ve investigated lo these many decades to a case that was flawed to begin with. Don’t like it Lazy, tough! Now onto those precious lines in your IMDB signature. The one about “the insane/the wicked”. Seems you’re talking about yourself again. Sad that. When the FACTS are laid out before you and you ignore them like the petulent child you are, how can anyone take you seriously?

3) Okay, to the ‘trashing’ of Geimer. I don’t have to do that. She does a pretty good job of that everytime she opens her mouth. One cannot take seriously her plight of being this victimized person when she refuses to call herself that and takes to task anyone who puts that on her. She also cannot be taken seriously when she’s campaigned for at least fifteen years now to get the charges against Polanski dropped, his plea deal expunged and any notion of rape erased from the public discourse. In fact, she has about a half a million reasons to want this all to, “Go away.” I’d say that’s incentive enough to change her story.

4) Here is the point of which none of Polanski’s detractors or attackers seem to want to address head on. And that is the fact that they seem to forget that Samantha Geimer admitted in her Grand Jury testimony that she had in fact, had consensual sexual relations with two others prior to her daliance with Polanski in 1977. The first was when she was eight, the other was shortly before the Polanski affair with her then (debated age) boyfriend, Steve Kronblet (identified through the Grand Jury transcript as available online everywhere). Kronblet was either 17 or 18 at the time he had full on sexual intercourse with Samantha Gailey. Now the laws according to the State of California about Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor, the charge Polanski pled to, reads as this:

According to the Sexual Assault Glossary of Terms, it defines statutory rape as “sexual intercourse between an adult and a minor. The adult can be found guilty of statutory rape in courts of law even if the minor was a willing partner.”

According to the laws of California, Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor is defined as:

  • an adult can be guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse if he or she has sex with a minor.
  • a minor can be guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse if he or she has sex with another minor.

What are the penalties for Unlawful Sexual Intercourse?

1) If a person is no more than three years older than the minor with whom they have sex, that person is guilty of a misdemeanour and can be imprisoned in the county jail for up to one year or fined up to $1,000.00.

2) If a person is more than three years older than the minor with whom they have sex, that person is guilty of a misdemeanour or a felony. If convicted of a felony, that person can be imprisoned in state prison for up to four years.

So now let’s look at how old Steve Kronblet was, According to several documents, he was either 17 or 18 at the time he had consensual sex with Samantha Geimer. When I read the penal code for Unlawful Sexual intercourse With a Minor, I don’t see any exception made when your name is Steve Kronblet. I don’t see any subsections or any other things giving an exception to Kronblet in terms of having had sex with Samantha Gailey. I don’t see that if Roman Polanski is found to be guilty of the the offense, that Steve Kronblet is suddenly protected of having done the same. So instead of the law being blind and equal, it is being punative due to the exception of the bigger fish to fry and the smaller fish in the bowl who has no value in terms of the amount of press that can be generated by the District Attorney’s office of any given state. The law in this case not only centered Polanski out but it became vendictive. While not asking the same of Joe the Plumber Kronblet, it decided that he wasn’t responsible for what he did. And according to the statute under which Polanski was charged, even Samantha could have been charged with having had sexual intercourse with Kronblet. So again the question Lazy and his ilk refuses to answer: Steve Kronblet had sexual intercourse with minor Samantha Gailey, is he not as culpable as Polanski? The answer to that would be met by Lazy and his type with the standard: Silence.

While they demand quickfire answers when they ask questions, they either refuse to or blatantly ignore any valid questions those of us who have explored this case have of them. And this is even big stripey and bold when it comes to the culpability of Susan Gailey in allowing her little ‘darling’ off with not only Polanski, but photographer Sean Kinney only a scant months before Polanski became the poor schmuck-of-the-month. Kinney was responsible for taking the infamous ‘schoolgirl with the books, shyly looking back over her shoulder’ photo of Geimer. I’d post it here, but then I’d have to hurl. It can be Googled…No, I’ll give the link to one of the images [ HERE ]. There, that way I don’t have to have that demonic look on my blog and have to look at it when I visit my own pages. Anyone caught by her surprising resemblance to an MKULtra project gone bad? It does me.

So here’s the $64,000.00 question to Lazy and the Polanski attackers: Let’s say you sleep with someone underage but it is consensual and you are say 43. You are charged with the crime, but then you find out someone who is 17 or 18 sleeps with the same underage girl and they don’t get charged, even though that is illegal under the statutes of the state in which the both offenses are committed….buuuuuut, that other person isn’t charged. Would you not feel that you are being centered out for being the bigger fish and the other guy who is ordinary citizen isn’t? I’d hope you’d say yes….and I hope you’d be as angry as Polanski was knowing that Steve Kronblet was out there and being protected.

5) Susan Gailey: Same apologists as the Steve Kronblet ones. Samantha says that everyone blames her mother for what happened. Well, hell….yeah! She was the adult and the mother, according to the law. She had the requisite DNA link to protect her youngin’ with all her heart and soul from exploitation and ruthless and soulless directors wanting to double ass fuck their little baby. Correct? See, my standard for this is Roman Polanski’s murdered wife, Sharon Tate who fought for the life of her unborn child to the point that when the knives being weilded by her killers took her life, she did that one single thing to make sure her unborn son was protected: She used her arms and legs to protect her abdomen and to protect that child from being harmed inutero. When that child was taken from her body during the autopsy, there were no slash marks, stab wounds nor any trauma inflicted on that little being. So this shows Sharon Tate did that one thing a mother by virtue of being the birth giver did in order to see her son was protected; she used other parts of her body to protect her stomach. Unlike Susan Gailey who it appears has no qualms about sending her little angel off with men not her father, brother, uncle or grandfather. And further, why wasn’t Susan Gailey charged with being a bad mother? Considering that it was noted that both her daughters seemed to be ‘off the rails’ in terms of not being monitored. Kimberly, Susan’s oldest daughter, had been in and out of rehab facilities for an addiction to Quaaludes. Her qualifications as a mother can also be called into question considering that she also allowed her then boyfriend keep drug paraphernalia around the house in clear veiw of a minor child. Again, another prosecution not carried out. It seems the LA District Attorney’s office may have been understaffed and or underfunded in that regard to carry out multiple investigations of the Gailey family. Is this pertinent to the Polanski matter? Yes, it certainly is.

If Roman Polanski was arrested and charged for an illegal act, than Steve Kronblet, Susan Gailey and Kimberly Gailey should also have been arrested and charged for their illegal crimes. Oh…what was that again? Ohhhhh, I see. U(nited) S(tates) vs THEM meaning them weird looking and weird speaking foreigners and bigger fish. I see there is no double standard when it comes to the law nor its supposed blindness and…equalness.

6) Addressing Lazy’s question about “thrashing those who don’t share the same opinions….” I’m willing to be civil and courteous when discussing aspects of anything with people willing to actually READ what I’ve posted. When it comes to people who gloss over the parts that don’t support their version of their so-called facts, I have little time. Particularly when I’ve stated the same things about a billion times over the past ten years I’ve been posting to IMDB. There is something to be said about ‘sharing opinions’ and actually addressing questions asked without resorting to name calling or mocking a person who has shared something as personal as a rape story, then I have little if no time for those people. Hear that Lazy?

7) Talking about ‘shit talking’: Isn’t that what you did to me there Lazy when you did your so-called analysis of my rape? Didn’t you decide to be judge, jury and executioner of your version of idiocy when you made that aforementioned mockery of my rape? Didn’t you in fact declare war with that one? And then you had the audacity to state that I had no evidence of my rape and demanded me to ‘show’ you proof. Sans Delorean-ing you back to December 21, 1977 and letting you see what was done to me, what ‘proof’ would you like? While you point out I have no proof of what happened to me, I state to you, neither does Samantha Geimer. You’re no different then Judge Laurence Rittenband who made a mockery of the justice system he took an oath to uphold then summarilty trashed it with his illegal exparte communications, ill use of his robes in terms of ordering Polanski’s deportation and then renegging on a plea agreement to which all sides agreed. So don’t go crying on IMDB about your so-called ill-treatment. Believe me, when someone is on top of you taking away any power, voice or security you have, you’ll know what ill-treatment is. Until then, shut your fucking yap you fucking asswipe. I’m tired of you Rittenband/Susan Gailey/Steve Kronblet/Susan Gailey’s Boyfriend xenophobic apologists who when trying to argue facts, have none in your arsenal. Then you go bellyaching about being called a name or two when you refuse to acknowledge the FACTS in this case.

8 ) And further to Lazy: Why do you care so much about Samantha Geimer? Are you related to her? Do you share some sort of shared experience with her in when telling a story of something that happened to you, you weren’t believed? Are you somehow superimposing on her some sort of related victimhood? If that is the case, stop! She does not care what you think, in fact, she’s told you to more or less shut your yap and stop trying to make what happened something else it wasn’t. She’s sick of people like you trying to get some sort of fame whoring off of her. Unlike you and your ilk, I don’t need that kind of whoring. I don’t need that kind of validation. The FACTS speak for themselves. I don’t need to concoct things or try to build myself up to be bigger than I think I am for some sort of validation.

In closing. I know I’ve come down hard on Lazy. I know to some my statement above may seem as if I’m unfeeling, but I’m so sick of having to retype the same FACTS over and over and over again. It’s so damn tiring to have to rehash things that have been ignored due to some ignorance or in Lazy’s case, pure idiocy. People like Lazy make me sick. They make me wonder what type of education is being sold these days. Did they learn nothing about how to research and break apart the mass in order to examine the individual pieces? Are they so totally stupid they don’t know how to Google something they need to know? Are we in such a fast food culture that only the sensationalistic sound bites become their truth? Are they so addicted to the so-called ‘reality’ TV they can’t disseminate between reality and fiction? The thing too that makes me so angry is that most of this is coming from people who were born after the events of March 10 , 1977 and who have no cultural background for what it was like during the time I grew up. They’ve conscripted my generation as theirs and changed the paradigm because they didn’t and don’t want to understand it. It wasn’t like “One Tree Hill” or “90210”. It was more like “The Ice Storm” and all that entailed. It was darker, less formed, more fluid in terms of personal space and what was considered being a minor. Girls back then weren’t walking and talking Zwinkies speaking in that concocted vocal fry trying to be some sort of cloned Kim Kardashian. Back in my day and age, we were the Kim Kardashians who actually talked the talk and walked the walk. And we didn’t go on television to apologize for a marriage failure. We owned our bodies, our minds and our deeds. And Samantha Geimer certainly has owned hers…to a point. So to Lazy, stop trying to control a message you don’t know how to form. Stop trying to make sense out of something you know nothing of. Until you begin to start discussing without mockery, don’t expect to be treated as anything else but the snivelling little brat you are.

Next discussion…….


  1. wow, you’re devoting an entire blog piece to one random internet poster.. and you think they’re the one with problems.. guess again.. this little blog shows that you’re not only obsessed but chances are that you’re insane and possibly extremely dangerous..

    1. Ah, au contraire. He is the one who stalks. Even followed me around on IMDB and posted to a board he’d never posted to before just because I posted there. It appears you skipped the all important lesson here my friend. The fact that Lazy represents the mass who still clamour for Polanski’s blood and still believe Geimer’s absurd musings. And this blog piece served one all important point…one that will remain hidden to you Lazy.

  2. it is interesting how Chris Holloway, whoever that is, misses your point. I personally don’t think lazarus deserves any answer at all – I’ve noticed that at imdb they are deaf to arguments, and no consistent discussion is possible – but since you obviously felt his absurd question needed answering, you put it, as usual, very eloquently and logically (I would also add, just to remind him the obvious, the other instances of legal misconduct both in 1977/78 and 2009/10 – but, then again, it would fall on the same deaf ears). Did you post this at imdb? I don’t want to come that freak show right now, will resume my constant activity there some time after (or during) the holidays.

    Thank you very much for your praise! I am really really happy and proud to hear this from you!


    By the way, Chris… if you want to see someone “obsessed” and “possibly extremely dangerous”, you are very welcome to come to by blog and confront me there – provided you have something up your sleeve besides insults and invectives, which I doubt.

    1. Jean:

      Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate the thought and time you did take to address the issues I brought up. I personally am done with Lazy. He seems to think we are all entitled to his opinion when he has no facts to back him up. And that always seems to be the case with these people. My thing is, someone has to stick around to keep the facts of the case in view and not the salacious crap that seems to permeate the internet about Roman.

      Chris and others there on that IMDB muckfest seem to not be able to grasp the finer points, hence the continued misinformation spewed there daily. Ones like Chris and Lazy don’t seem to be able to grasp the issues of having a crooked judge, both Rittenband and Espinosa who refuse(d) to sign off on the plea deal. These idiots seem to think it’s simple for Roman to come back and just end it. Not so easy and I dare these idjits to voluntarily give up their freedom in exchange for the fickle behaviour(s) of the California Legal System. Namely, Steve Cooley, David Walgren and Judge Peter Espinosa who could have ended it simply by signing off on the plea deal and sentencing Polanski in absentia. They seem to think that Polanski has to give up his freedom to end it. California could do that with the stroke of a pen. Done……

      As for posting it at IMDB, if that question was to me, no I didn’t. There’s really no sense. No one except for the Polanski fans and those who have acquainted themselves with the facts of the case would care to read. And I don’t blame you for not wanting to subject yourself to the idiocy of the Roman Polanski IMDB board regulars…and these are not his fans. Go figure posting ad nauseum about a person you hate. Gosh talk about obssessive.

      And you’re more than welcome for the praise. I had wanted to do what you did in putting together all of Samantha Geimer’s confusing lies but you did it so much more eloqent than I ever could.

      I have a feeling Chris is Lazy and if he is, then I suspect he won’t come and challenge you on your blog due to the fact he would be out of his league.


  3. You keep comparing Polanski to her couple years older boyfriend, when thats a total hogwash. The law has something called romey and juliet laws and here is ane example why thecourts woukd probably even today give someone like her bf probation and Polanski 10 years:

    “Note 4: As of July 6, 2001, pursuant to House Bill 2379, in the case of Rape II, Sodomy II and Sex Abuse, the judge has discretion to exempt the offender from Measure 11 mandatory sentencing if :
    The offender has no prior convictions for serious offenses and
    The victim was between 12 and 14 years of age and
    The victim’s lack of consent was due solely to the victim’s age and
    The perpetrator was no more than five years older than the victim.
    Note 5: As of July 6, 2001, pursuant to House Bill 2379, in the case of Unlawful Sexual Penetration II, the judge has discretion to exempt the offender from Measure 11 mandatory sentencing if :
    The offender has no prior convictions for serious offenses and
    The victim was 12 years of age or older and
    The victim’s lack of consent was due solely to the victim’s age and
    The perpetrator was no more than five years older than the victim and
    No object other than the hand was used to commit the crime.”

    You see, her underaged boyfrid fit in both of these categories and Polanski didnt and would today never be eligible for probation even with that plea deal.

    1. No, you’re not grasping the finer points here. There is no real “Romeo and Juliette” laws on any books that I know of. Time and time again in the South, young men around the age of say 15 are frequently charged with having sex with young women around the ages of 11-15 they’ve stated is still a felony. They’ve been imprisoned for up to 10 years and when released, have had to register as sex offenders. This of course diminishes the money earning power they have in order to care for the children usually conceived out of a lack of knowledge of birth control. Then after they’re released and forced to register as the aforementioned sex offender, they then are told they cannot be around children of any age…which usually means they cannot actively participate in the raising of their children. So to say that there are these so-called “Romeo & Juliette” laws shows your apparent lack of understanding of the law. As you did note, the judge has total discretion, however, very rarely do they ever allow the young man any leeway when 1) sexual intercourse can be proven, and 2) pregnancy results.

      The point here is that the law is somewhat schitzophrenic when it comes to exacting its arm. Interesting that minors cannot consent to sex, as Geimer did in this case, yet they can be tried as an adult as young as eight or ten. That again, is totally at the discretion of the district attorney. Doesn’t matter if Steve Kronblet fit into any category, the point is he had sex with a minor and despite whether he was 17 or 18, he was and should have been in the docket beside Polanski. But miraculously, he wasn’t hence my reference to the bigger fish.

      And wrong again on whether Polanski would be eligiable for probation. This is from the Wikipedia entry for actor Rob Lowe:

      Sex tape controversy

      In 1988, Lowe was involved in a sex scandal over a videotape of him having sex with two women, one of whom was 16. She was filmed with Lowe during the night before the Democratic National Convention in Atlanta. Lowe has asserted that he did not know that the second girl was underage, and it was confirmed that the two had met at a bar.[16] At the time, Lowe was campaigning for Michael Dukakis.[17] Lowe agreed to perform 20 hours of community service to avoid criminal charges.

      Another part of the same tape was leaked at the time, showing Lowe and his friend Justin Moritt, later the line producer, both having sexual intercourse and oral sex with a young American model named Jennifer, in a hotel room in Paris. This part of the original tape was sold as one of the first commercially available celebrity sex tapes, damaging his public image.[18] Eventually, his career rebounded and Lowe mocked his own behavior during two post-scandal appearances as host of Saturday Night Live.

      So Lowe didn’t even get charged and performed community service for having sex with an underage girl.

      Other cases of Statutory Rape:

      Don Johnson – At fourteen, Melanie Griffith left home to move in with the actor who was then twenty-two. He was never charged.

      Kelsey Grammer – star of the Emmy-winning comedy “Frasier.” In 1995, authorities in Arizona decided not to prosecute Grammer for statutory rape, and a New Jersey grand jury declined to indict him on the same charge. Both accusations were made by the same 17-year-old girl.

      Sonny Bono – Singer-politician. In 1963, 28-year-old Bono met, and married, 16-year-old Cherilyn La Pierre, better known as Cher.

      And last but not least is John Derek who courted a 14 year-old Catherine Collins soon to rename herself Bo Derek. Derek took Bo to Germany because if he didn’t, he’d have been arrested for statutory rape.

      What is the meaning of all of this?

      None of the above were convicted of their obvious offenses, yet Polanski was charged and treated abysmally. So again, one has to ask oneself, if they’re honest, why Kronblet was not charged despite the fact Geiemr testified she’d had consensual sex with him? Rittenband should have demanded charges against Kronblet no matter his closeness in age. The point here is that he committed a crime. Full stop!

    1. While yes, people do get charged with having sex with underage men and women and they do go to prison and or jail, the point you’ve missed here is that everyone in the Polanski case with the exception of Judge Rittenband, didn’t want or seek jail time. All reports ordered by the court came back with the firm recommendation of NO PRISON TIME. Geimer and her mother didn’t seek prison time. Drs Gold and Markham said prison would not be necessary. Geimer’s father, a lawyer who was the one who came up with the plea agreement, didn’t want prison time. All the other charges were dropped because there was no evidence to back up Geimer’s claim, and not once has Polanski ever denied having sex with her. Even today, Geimer has stated she wants the case dismissed and it gone. She was more angry at Cooley and Walgren for bringing this case up more than she was at Polanski. She was angry and wrote the Swiss justice minister to demand Polanski’s immediate release.

      The one thing you and others have missed in this whole thing is one simple thing: A complaining victim. In all of these other cases you and others cite ad nauseum including current Penn State controversy is they have a complaining or multiple complaining witnesses. Geimer has been anything but a complaining witness…in fact, she’s been one of if not the single most ally in Polanski’s case. As the so-called victim, she has been the one most staunch in the wish to see this case over and done with in Polanski’s favour. What victim wants that? Simply, she doesn’t. She seems more like a concerned lover. It’s only when in the media that she plays the part. The only reason the police were called is because of the fact that her older sister overheard her telling her ex/current boyfriend the aforementioned Steve Kronblet. And again, if consensual sex with a minor is a crime, then we should all believe that Kronblet should have been charged with having sexual intercourse with a minor. Correct?

  4. You keep mentioning celebrity cases form long ago, but fact is you never hear even celebrities engage in under aged sex anymore. WHen is the last time you heard of anyone winning a sex case in CA lately? They are going after this sort of crime (consentual or not) harder than any. Even celebrity football players (forgot his name right now) are getting jail terms for consentual sex acts with 16 yr old prostitutes. Look it up. You never hear of Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, or anyone anymore engage in this sort of behavior because what would happen to holywood is what is happening in the sport world right now. They dont care if it is consentual or not they want to keep America a christian and moralist society with parent shaving ultimate control fo their kids. It’s also funny how you erased my last point proving my point that they are even going after females.

    1. Fine, I’ll continue to mention celebrity cases…but the reason we don’t hear of celebrities engaging in underage sex with a minor because now it’s not as prevalent. The paradigm has shifted and that is the subtlty you and Polanski haters haven’t grasped. You mentioned Depp…Depp is one of Polanski’s most ardant supporters. So while you mention Depp, you forget to cite that aspect. You forget to state that Depp knows the man at issue and has no qualms whatsoever of allowing his young daughter Lily Rose to be around Roman Polanski. Why? Johnny Depp knows the man. Sigourney Weaver, Frank Langella, Lena Olin with a young daughter from filmmaker husband Lasse Hallstrom, had no qualms about having her then pre-adolescent daughter Torah around Polanski during the filming of “The Ninth Gate”. There have only been three ‘complaints’ against Polanski, and all three are threadbare at best. The motives behind each one including Geimer’s are suspect. Like it or not.

      This “Christian and moralist” America you cite doesn’t exist. Never did. Not when it exploited the indiginous populations then put small pox virus in blankets it handed out to them on the reservation. There’s nothing moral about that. This is the very same America that continues to pursue a 78 year-old film director for one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, is the very same America that calls baby pageants in the South a ‘way of life’ or ‘tradition’. This is the very same ‘moral’ America who gets fat off of the porn industry it professes to deplore. Just look up the crusade of John Ashcroft against the porn industry in the early 80s and not to mention the Satanists he seemed to find under every rock and tree root. The man who launched a campaing to root out the evils that were the so-called industry of Satanic Ritual Abuse only managed to root out innocent old ladies and their families ergo McMartin who are now stygmatized. Not to mention that the California legal system made children lie about having been abused so they even now, believe they were ritualistically abused by these innocent people. This is not what a ‘moral’ and ‘Christian’ society does. It doesn’t make scapegoats out of innocents. Now how does all of this pertain to Polanski? Simple…Polanski never denied he’d had sex with her. And he was willing to take his lumps for it under the law. However, he didn’t expect to be treated above what the law called for. And despite all of your citing facts of other cases, the point here is that in the year previous to this case, no one charged under the same offense in the LA Courts ever got prison time. No one. However, Rittenband wanted to make an example out of Polanski to suit the clamour from his country club buddies and for what he’d done to a rape victim prior to getting the Polanski case. Instead of allowing his impartiality to dominate in both cases, he buckled to public pressure and was going to seek a punishment over and above what was called for. And he did not ask for the same in terms of Kronblet.

      As for the ‘final point’ you seemed to think I glossed over…. No, in today’s head-on-a-platter mentality, Kronblet would have had his ass in that docket beside Polanski. The public would have clamoured for it. And at no time would Kronblet ever have been considered a ‘Romeo’ to Geimer’s ‘Juliette’. Ever. He’d be tagged a rapist and suffered punishment as well as Polanski. the pbulic would have clamoured fo it. Or they’d have asked him to appear on a reality show for the publicity of being one of the other guys who ‘raped’ that ppor, poor angel a la Joey Buttafuco. And under the clamour for Kronblet’s ass, Gunson would have had to charge him as well. He’d have had no choice if he planned on keeping his seat as a DA. Votes speak. And in Cooley’s case, it spoke loudly that the citizens of California voted for Kamala Harris over him because they knew in the cash-strapped state it is, he was abusing public funds to pursue Polanski instead of getting it over and done with. The public spoke. They don’t care in this case…..move on….Why not you?

    1. First of all, the the first case there was a double homicide including rape. Roman Polanski was not charged with multiple counts of rape or murder. Also, Polanski according to TWO experts was deemed not a sexual predator, nor a mentally disturbed person. Connection please?

      In the Ajay Dev case, there were multiple counts and an extended time and over a longer period. Again, give me a connection to Polanski. Polanski was charged with ONE COUNT OF UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A MINOR and further still, Geimer and her mother both declined any State paid for mental assistance for their trials, and I say that with sarcasm. Geimer has stated she was not harmed and in an interview with George Stefanopolous on “Good Morning America” she stated the only way in which the charge was illegal was that it had to do with her age. She states she was not harmed and that she was very please with the Swiss decision to free Polanski.

      Polanski was never charged as a sex offender and this case came way before the sex offender registry was established. And let’s not forget either, there was no evidence in Geimer…none.

  5. ALl I am saying is that anyone like Polanski in that county whether it is consentual or not or family wants to press charges or not does many years in prison or most likely a life sentence. The only reason he got that deal was because he was a celebrity in LA and not in another California county. And it was similar, because Polanski kept going when she said no. There was no evidence of that in any of those cases I listed that the victims resisted in any way. SO how are they worse? Watch the movie Trust. It is based on a case very similar to Polanski where the girl doesnt fight it but says no at first and the guy is made to look like a demon.

    1. BULL!!!! Polanski didn’t get any special treatment due to his ‘celebrity’. Rittenband had no legal justification for wanting to impose anything other than the sentence recommended by the court appointed psychiatrist and probation officer. Neither one recommended prison or jail. In consultation with Samantha Geimer and Susan Gailey, neither wanted prison or jail. At no point would a judge go back on the sentencing recommendations let alone reneg twice.

      Samantha Geimer said she said “no”. However, she didn’t to Steve Kronblet and you still haven’t told me why he didn’t get charged with having sex with her. If the law is equal in all cases, then Kronblet should have been charged despite the fact it was consensual. Correct?

  6. There are plenty of cases where people do jail or prison time for consentual sex acts like I mentioned with that female teacher. So how am I wrong and how are you right that he should get probation? Plus there are plenty of cases you just dont hear about where people do time despite victims not wanting to testify against them. Look at this kid for example:

    “(The victim) is underage and you can’t consent to a felony,” Stewart explained.

    Your’e never going to convince me your bs because I have been on the receiving end of a court room and have done time. I know way more about how sex offenders are treated by guards, other inmates, judges, etc. than you ever will. So try convincing some other ignoramouses about your bullshet theories. Instead of wasting time defending this dipshet you can defend the countless of kids with public defenders who have no chance at defense that you never hear about.

  7. Quote by the da from the same article linked above where the kid got months of jail time and has a felony on his record now:

    “The way (Varela) manipulated them both is outrageous,” Stewart said. “And both women still defend him to this day. It’s unbelievable.”

    Another guy in that county also was arrested and even the parents of both parties didnt object only a cop saw them making out in a car.

  8. Like i told you, they look at it differently if its two minors. Look at the law link I gave you from Oregon:

    You can call it age disxrimination r whatever, but even if he was 18-20 they discriminate and give those guys way lss than someone say 25. Only a douple years different and it could be the difference between registering as a sex offender or doing extra community service. Same thing with the girls age. If she was 12 and not 13 but even more willing, the guy trying to meet the 12 yr old online mght get way worse than the one trying to meet the 13 yr old and showing up with condoms. The american justice system is all about bias and disxrimination and CNn keeps saying how its the best in the world.

    1. The point is with two minors…it’s at the descretion of the court and most specifically the judge. If the judge decides to overrule the posecutor and decide to punish the minors, then it happens. I don’t have to read your endless links. The point here is that Steve Kronblet was four to five years older than Geimer and technically an adult. Polanski was charged therefore Kronblet should have been charged. And if again the court wants to uphold the appearance of impartiality, then it would have had to charge Kronblet. It did not. Therefore impartiality cannot be assumed. It also allowed a walk on the fact that the mother, Susan Gailey, had allowed her daughter off with a stranger without supervision from a family member or her self. Which again means, Polanski was treated differently.

      What I would like to know is if the other photographer, Sean Kineey, was allowed to bonk Samantha and was allowed to get away with it.

  9. I know Polanski isn’t a rapist or a pedophile, but I just don’t have any sympathy for an adult that slept with a 13 year old (or any minor)…

    1. Lyra:

      Then do you have any sympathy for the other two older men who had also slept with Samantha? Or is it just Polanski you have this vitriol for? Learn the FACTS before you post. Apparently an aide for the district attorney saw Samantha canoodling outside of Roger Gunson’s office while her mother was inside having a meeting. The guy Samantha was canoodling with a little inappropriately was her own mother’s boyfriend. Samantha had confessed to having had sex with at least two others before Polanski, one was her 18 year-old boyfriend a scant three months before Polanski. Seems she saw fit to resume her sexual prowess a scant two weeks after what was supposed to be the most traumatic moment of her life. In her book she said she made out with one guy on the porch of her house, while at a swimming hole two weeks after that she was screwing around.

      I have no idea how old you are, but I was born around the same time as Geimer. Girls back then were different and were having sex with men old enough to be their fathers. Don’t try to say that what Polanski did was any different than any man was doing with any number of willing teenagers. In my public school alone, there were at least a dozen girls who were pregnant by the age of 14 and with men older than 18. So quit trying to apply morals of today with those of the liberated sexuality of the early to late 70s. There were also 15 year-olds who were jumping on board tour buses of rock stars. If you look at Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, and at least a dozen more rock gods of that time, they were sleeping with willing 14/15 year olds. Sorry to burst your bubble.

  10. Would you be so quick to defend Polanski if he were a rich, white, talented director? Would you still defend him if he was just the dirty old man across the street?

    If Polanski isn’t a rapist would you feel comfortable leaving your 12 year old daughter alone with him?

    1. Agnie:

      I defend anyone who is wrongly accused of rape. There seems to be this collective gasp at the fact that Polanski may indeed be innocent, hence the fact that every single one of the six felony counts were whittled down to ONE COUNT OF UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A MINOR because unlike a lot of men, he did own up to what he did. He just refused as I do to call it rape. Apparently so does Samantha Geimer. Oh wait, when it suits her to call it that, particularly when she has a book to sell. What she’s saying in her book is not what she said when she first came out in 1997. She likes to have her cake and eat it too. And since when does a rape victim like receiving endearing emails from her rapist? I certainly didn’t. I was raped and I cannot stand the guy, yet Samantha acts all coquettish when talking about the lovely emails Polanski has sent her. Doesn’t sound like a rapee/rapist relationship to me. Sounds more like a woman who can count Roman Polanski as a notch on her bedpost. And yes, I would feel comfortable leaving my 12 year old with him. I just wouldn’t feel comfortable leaving my sexually aggressive 12 year-old with him. I would be more worried for him, than for her. Face facts, Samantha Geimer was a sexually experienced and aggressive 13/14 year-old.

      As for a “rich, white, talented director”, have you been as judgemental with John Derek who knowingly fled to Germany with a 15 year-old Cathrine Collins? Collins went on to become his fourth wife Bo Derek. The two didn’t come back to the United States until Bo reached the age of 18. He knowingly absconded with her to Germany because he knew he could legally sleep with her in Germany. And how about Kirk Douglass who it was well known brutally raped a young Natalie Wood? Seems Samantha didn’t have a scratch on her, and all this vitriol is reserved for Polanski. But Kirk Douglass is still considered an icon yet he left Natalie bleeding and having to be admitted to the hospital.

      It’s all about the degrees of the crime. Polanski owned up to what he did. As I said in the previous answer to Lyra, he did take his lumps. He just refused to be sentenced further for the crime in which he served his time. If memory serves me, that’s called DOUBLE JEOPARDY. This would have been all over back in 1977 had Judge Rittenband not been so concerned with how his Hillcrest Country Club denizens’ wives felt about his job. Last I looked, legally that’s called EXPARTE communications. As an impartial judge, he should not have been influenced by anything other than the legalities of what was before him.

      But of course, all of this is rendered moot had Samantha’s mother, Susan Gailey done the right thing and accompanied her daughter on the shoot. Seems Gailey does this. She relinquishes her daughter to men who it seems can further her [insert sarcasm] career. Gailey did this the previous December 1976 with photographer Sean Kinney. What gets me is that there have been plenty of young models whose mothers have accompanied them on underage photography shoots. Not Susan Gailey. Who has? Olga Kurylenko’s mother. Actress Patsy Kinset whose mother was undergoing Cancer treatments, never allowed Patsy off alone with anyone as long as she was under the age of 18. Yet Susan Gailey allowed her little princess off with not only one, but two men. In all of this no one has called Gailey up on her failures as a parent. Seems both daughters were allowed to get away with bloody blue murder, something both the probation and psychiatric reports pointed out. Had Susan Gailey been named Shawanna Gailey, you can bank on it, she’d have been charged with failing to parent. She’d have been in prison for allowing both daughters to get away with taking drugs, drinking and having underage sex. It seems only people like you care when Polanski’s name is attached, yet again fail to note that there was only one person with the power to not have allowed Samantha off with Polanski. And that was Susan Gailey. I have little care for a mother like that. So quit with your crap of trying to speak to this case when you have none of the facts correct.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *