LAW AIDING CITZEN STARRING GERARD BUTLER AND JAMIE FOXXI recently watched a film on my local cable company’s on demand service that is interesting in that it posits the aspect of what is a ‘law abiding citizen’?

The film stars Gerard Butler (“Lara Croft: Cradle of Life”, “Reign of Fire”, “Gamer” and “300”) as Clyde Shelton, a fringe worker for the CIA and whose wife and daughter are brutally murdered by two men. Enter Jamie Foxx (“The Kingdom”, “Miami Vice”, “Collateral” and “Ray”) as Nick Rice, at the beginning of the film and assistant district attorney for Philadelphia assigned to prosecute the killers of Shelton’s family. In the end, Nick is forced to take a plea on the case in which the actual killer walks on a lighter sentence as the other man involved in the Shelton case, is sent to Death Row. As the other man leaves for a five year prison sentence, Clyde watches as Rice is approached and it looks as if he’s in league with the real killer. Some years later Clyde puts together a plan to make all those who allowed the killer of his wife and daughter to get away with it. That plan Clyde puts into motion is as a law abiding citizen to make those pay who allowed the ‘deal’ with the devil as it were. The twist on this story is that Clyde only puts those in those positions of power in his line of fire. Everyone from Rice to the mayor (Viola Davis) are targets as far as Clyde Shelton is concerned due to their complicity in the system. Thus lays out the basic plot of the film. Shelton begins to get revenge on those he holds responsible for the miscarriage of justice that allowed the killer of his wife and child walk.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in the Polanski case? Plenty.

It seems as though it’s perfectly fine for those condemning Polanski and his decision to run back in 1978 to deride his decision, then to condemn the one responsible for that decision Polanski made. Polanski played by the rules as far as his case was concerned. As the Marina Zenovich documentary ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED & DESIRES succinctly summed up, there were gross incidents of judicial misconduct on behalf of the presiding judge, Laurence J. Rittenband. Most of which the film documented, however, there is a greater picture here. While Roman Polanski submitted himself to every hoop Rittenband presented to Polanski to jump through, Rittenband himself remained above that law he swore to uphold.

Going back to that epiotme of uprightness, some of the posters on the many boards I’ve posted, perused or lurked on, have stated that the issue here isn’t what Rittenband did, but what Polanski did. Granted, had Polanski ‘kept it in his pants’, a valid argument at any time if indeed there was a rape for Polanski to have been guilty of, the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ was allowed to propigate by Rittenband’s actions, but Vannatter’s actions and by the system itself. One cannot expect to have the air of propriety without a system that cannot be used by those chosen to uphold that law, to then turn around and crap on it. What am I talking about? Simply this. Polanski complied with all that was asked of him. Now what was asked of him? Here is what he did:

  • When ordered to return from Germany after the Oktoberfest photo that was shown Rittenband by David Welles, Roman Polanski returned as he was required to do by law.
  • When ordered to Chino for the psychiatric report, a thing that was not required under the law at the time, Polanski reported.
  • When the psychiatric and probation reports were completed, there was no need to hold him any further and it was the probation officer who ordered him released as per the fact that no psyche report takes the full 90 days to complete.
  • When ordered into court, Polanski presented himself. On those off days when it was only pro forma details for the lawyers, he did not have to report…as per the law.
  • Even when he was ordered to report to read from Rittenband’s prepared script, Roman Polanski still reported.

Those are the facts. Now whether it was required of Polanski to submit himself to harm other than what was required under the statute and Rittenband’s continued illegal conduct, it wasn’t up to Polanski to do so. Rittenband was the one who was conducting his court in an illegal fashion. Now the next statement I’ll likely get is: “OKay, if Polanski was feeling he was being ill-treated, why didn’t he stay and fight it?” Legitimate question, certainly, but not the reality Polanski was living with. He’d submitted himself to all that Rittenband demanded, but Rittenband was still renegging on the plea deal. And for those who’d say that it doesn’t matter, a judge is allowed to reneg all he wants. I say, no a judge is not. If the deal hammered out by both sides and in this case, on behalf of the so-called ‘victim’ and her lawyer and her father, also a lawyer who was the one who came up with the deal to begin with, all Rittenband had to do was to sign off on it…unless he felt that there was some pressure put on the ‘victim’. In that case and only that case, is the judge allowed to question the deal. In this case, and this case alone, no one wanted jail or prison time for Polanski. No one. Not even Geimer or her mother or father. What did Rittenband consider this as well as the court ordered reports from the probation office as well as the psychiatric reports? He considered it a whitewash. A whitewash only because it didn’t comport with his belief of who he thought Polanski was. And that is not his right by law. He can think whatever he wants about Polanski’s conduct or his life, the point here is that it means nothing in terms of applying the law. And what Rittenband did was illegal.

Going back to that assumption that Polanski had to lay himself at the feet of the corrupt judge to accept his ‘punishment’, no noe has to submit themselves to something that is over and above what the statute itself states. Polanski took the only out he felt he could to escape Rittenband’s machinations, and that was to flee to France. And if Rittenband wanted to make sure Polanski didn’t have that ability to run, he should have confiscated Polanski’s passport, which Rittenband didn’t do. So is it Polanski’s fault that Ritteband failed to do so? No. Should Polanski have given that up when he returned from Germany? No. It wasn’t required by law for him to do so. So this returns me again to what Polanski did do in order to comply with what the court ordered. And what he did do was comply at all turns. The only time he didn’t was when he felt he was being treated unfairly. If he hadn’t run, which Rittenband wanted Polanski to self-deport himself anyway…something Rittenband had no legal right to demand, Polanski did what Rittenband wanted. He left the United States.

So now where onto the law abiding citizen part. LIke Clyde in the film, he did what was required of him by law to do. He believed that the law would do what it was designed to do and to punish those responsible for the deaths of his wife and child. Even if it meant that Nick would loose his case for whatever reason, at least according to Clyde, Nick would have tried. Which would have been all Clyde would have asked of Nick. To try. What does this have to do with Polanski? Simple. It could try to address this fairly and swiftly for all involved. But somehow like Judge Laurence Rittenband before him, Steve Cooley and Peter Espinoza feel that they don’t have to follow the law. They feel that it is their word and nothing more. I asked in a previous post, what is Steve Cooley afraid of. I’ll ask again, if there is nothing to hide, why continue to keep Roger Gunson’s deposition under seal? What is to be gained by it? Gunson gave this deposition to the Polanski side to help him nad them in understanding what actually happened with Rittenband, and this comported precisely with what Douglas Dalton has always contended. There’s no mystery here. And for Polanski to quit his fight from Switzerland with so much still in question as per the original procedings, then Swiss law would be in breach of its own Geneva Convention about turning prisoners over to a system that will not comport with that law.

Like Clyde Shelton, Roman Polanski expected to be treated like any other citzen of the United States. Be given equal treatment and not centred out for his celebrity, which despite what those anti-Polanskites seem to think, worked against him. It didn’t help him. It didn’t protect him. Rittenband on the other hand gained off of Polanski’s fame and then continued to treat him above and beyond what the law required. That is not prosecution, it is persecution. The fact that Rittenband didn’t pay for his treatment of Polanski is a shame. He should have been pulled from the bench and taken to task for his misconduct that went over the line of justice. And yeah, yeah, yeah…I’ve heard that one again about Polanski keeping it his pants. But he didn’t. In the end, he expected to be treated fairly and without prejudice. Despite what Polanski did or didn’t do, whether the said double anal rape occurred according to the evidence collected and tested…oh wait, failed to be tested, the facts still remain the Californai legal system still refuses to play by the rules. Not surprising since Steve Cooley hasn’t seen fit to prosecute those involved in decades old abuses by the California Archdiocese of the Catholic Church given they’re contributing to his run for Attorney General of the State of Californai. Not surprising at all.

Oh, I should also mention that just recently, The Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger has reduced civil servant’s paychecks to minimum wage. Considering California is facing a budget shortfall by winter, the fact that Cooley is wasting funds on this case to ‘get Polanski back’ is ridiculous. Espinoza, have the guts to sentence Polanski in absentia and have this over and done with. You’ll look like the bigger man for it. Instead, you just continue to look like the Rittenband abstructionist you are. Some legacy.


I’m going to depart from my Roman Polanski posts to address something I feel needs to be looked at:

The above trailer is to the film OUT OF THE BLUE starring LORD OF THE RINGS and STAR TREK star, Karl Urban as a police officer in a small town on New Zealand’s South Island where a gunman by the name of David Malcolm Gray, an unemployed man with mental disorders, went on a shooting spree that left 13 dead and three injured and a community asking why it was allowed to happen.

The full details of what exactly happened that day on 13 November 1990 can be found here at Wikipedia: [ ARAMOANA MASSACRE ]. It would be a far better read than me trying to fall all over myself trying to give you a blow-by-blow description of what happened and who was involved. So go have a read, then hit your back button and come on back to read my post….That is if you want to. Suffice to say, after I watched the film directed by New Zealander Robert Sarkies, I was left with the feeling of total shock. Why shock?

I really do not understand the feeling from anyone that they need to own a gun or have one in their possession, let alone allowing someone who is mentally disordered like Gray to own not only one, but many and many that by all right no private citizen should be able to possess. The type of gun Gray used was tantamount to a Russian AK-47, the kind used by the Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War. This type of weapon can be adjusted to be either a semi-automatic or automatic. Which only means one thing: It is a capable of killing and killing many. In Gray’s case, he was a collector, someone who had a fascination for guns and knew how to use them, also stockpiling amunition. I ask this: Why does anyone need to stockpile guns or amunition? If you’re not law enforcement or someone in the Armed Forces, why are you allowed to own a gun?

Living in Canada as I do, I’m struck by all that my government has done to make sure these types of weapons do not fall into the hands of someone able to carry out a mass shooting as was done at the Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal in 1989 where 14 women were killed by a man angry that men’s jobs were being taken by women. Again like Gray, Marc Lupine carried out his mission with absolute efficency as he walked from class to class shooting indescriminately. This episode forced the Canadian Government to re-examine the issue of gun control in Canada and who actually should have the right own them. There is a gun registry where one must sign onto in order to own a simple handgun, but the one thing that is clear is that no one has the right to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon here in Canada. However, in other so-called advanced countries like the gun happy United States of America, it’s not so simple to force a gun registry due to certain aspects of America’s Constitution allowing such ownership under their Second Amendment.

With events such as Waco and the Branch Davidians, Columbine and the D.C. Sniper behind them, the nation that prides itself on its ability to shoot from the hip then ask questions later, still allows gun shows to continue where men like Gray and Lupine are allowed to go and peruse to their heart’s content and buy whatever strikes their fancy. Ever since the shooting of Ronald Reagan and the injuring of Reagan’s press secretary James Brady, the question of gun ownership has been a hot button issue. Sarah Brady, wife of Brady, has tried since the 1981 shooting of her husband and the former president to get Congress to make some kind of law about guns and gun ownership when John Hinckley Jr. was allowed to buy a gun and use it injuring two others in the process of shooting Reagan and Brady. Hinckley like Lupine and Gray, suffered from a mental disorder. He’d tried several times to get in touch with actress Jodie Foster to no avail. With not being able to do so, he decided to ‘do the big thing’ so she’d notice him. Much in the same way Mark David Chapman did with his obsession with John Lennon, Hinckley took it upon himself to make a statement. So why are these types of people allowed to even buy a gun, let alone own one? Sarah Brady has tried to enact some kind of identity check in order to make sure these types of offenders do not have access to the kind of weapons one would consider only used for wartime or by law enforcement.

The NRA in the United States would have us believe that it is a person’s right to own a gun. In another time it would have been, when the nearest law enforcement was the next valley over or there wasn’t another person within acres of your land and the possibility of bandits were an issue. But this is not the Old West or DEADWOOD. This isn’t Al Swearengen having to defend his business against those like George Hearst who’d dare to come in and take it over. This is 2010 where the nearest neighbour is in the apartment or the house next door. We’re stacked too close together to have to have weapons to protect us and with law enforcement a telephone call away. And certainly not the weapons favourited by the likes of Gray and Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris. Within weeks of the Columbine shooting, the NRA held a convention in Colorado where then NRA leader and actor Charleton Heston entoned, “Not from my cold, dead hands,” like he was re-enacting some scene from one of his movies. This isn’t PLANET OF THE APES or SOLENT GREEN, this is America in the 1990s where we don’t need to be ‘locked and loaded’ as Sarah Palin would say.

One should be asking why the NRA and other such gun lobbiests need to continue to tout the Second Amendment in such times as these. The simple answer should be that no one should have to own a gun. The more complicated issue is deep set in the fabric of the society that continues to allow these kinds of guns to be sold in gun shows and other venues where there are no checks to find out if the potential owner has a prison record, or a record of mental issues. These types of venues don’t care. They only care for the ability to own, but not be responsible. Kleibold and Harris weren’t even old enough to be able to obtain the weapons they had including bomb making materials, so they asked someone to get the guns for them. The issue here is who should be responsible? Kleibold and Harris’ parents should have been held accountable for what their sons did, and they were sued by family members of the victims killed. The NRA would have us believe they care for responsible gun ownership, but they do nothing to make sure their venues are closed to such things as a mentally disordered person who might be able to buy a gun and use it for just such a killing spree, because let’s face it, the only thing one can do with one of these kinds of weapons is to use them for killing many.

So we go back to David Malcolm Gray, a loner with a mental disorder and the ability to own guns he should not legally been allowed to own. New Zealand enacted gun control measures as a result of Gray’s killing spree. I say, the horse already escaped, why close the barn door now. Why does it take these kinds of incidents to get the ball rolling to restrict these kinds of weapons? Why not keep these kinds of weapons out of the hands of the general public who have no right to own them? With ads for gun sales in the backs of magazines and other periodicles, it is so very easy to order them via the mail or on Ebay. There are no laws to prevent such weapons from passing through postal stations or Fed-Exing them as there should be. How about just not at all? Why not just say, “These kinds of guns are not allowed to be owned by a private citizen”? Well because gun owners and lobbiests cry and stamp their feet their rights are being trampled. Well how about those who are killed or wounded by such guns every time someone goes postal and shoots up an office building or a school or a small town? Where do they get their rights or lives back?

OUT OF THE BLUE is gutwrenching to watch. it is unflinching in the events as they happened and when Gray is finally taken out by New Zealand special forces operatives sent from Wellington to find Gray, we are left with the feeling of satisfaction. Satisfaction that the man responsible for the deaths of five children and six adults in the rampage, is finally dead. Does that make us monsters for wanting men like this ‘taken out’? I don’t think so. I think it means we are for justice and for the rights of citizens to be paramount to out elected law makers. We want to know they have our best interests at heart and are not part and party to these NRA types who decry it’s their right to own them.


After some time away from this issue, I came back to find that I had a boatload of comments awaiting approval, trashing and commenting on. What I found was a wide range of things from links to porn sites, free Viagra, seeing photos of Rachel Bilson (never heard of her) naked, and several sites for free downloads of movies. While I trashed about 200 of these like posts, I approved of some that were to say the least, condemning of what I’ve had to say on the topic of Samantha Geimer and her supposed ‘ordeal’ with Roman Polanski some 33 years ago. I’ve responded to many approved comments from people who stopped by simply to accuse me of being a hypocrite, to others who believe I had what was coming to me from this IMDB poster who annotated my story of my rape. I also had a wide range of comments that I did trash who were outright stupid, and still others who I believe should never see the light of day considering they were just plainly, bad.

I have one thing to say though on those who wish to comment on the Polanski case without providing their facts in the form of links or a page of testimony or even something that can back up what they’re saying. I’m going to state this with clarity: If you are going to try to argue this case with me without providing proof in the form of an actual page of testimony or something that is in the public record of the case, I’m saying don’t bother posting. It won’t be accepted nor approved. I have very little time and patience for those who refuse to aquit themselves with the facts and claim such things as, “her boyfriend never came to her place….” Etc. You clearly show a lack of intelligence when you refuse to make yourself even aware of the issues in this case. Further, like it or not, Roman Polanski’s rights were abused. Samantha Geimer, it appears, received her payment in the form of a half a million dollar payout given to her by Polanski and confirmed by her lawyers. She received her ju$tice. Roman Polanski has as yet, to receive his in the form of fair treatment at the hands of the California Justice System. Until he does, this blog will continue to raise the pertinent issues regarding that injustice. This blog will also point out the errors made by stupid people who refuse to even believe that Polanski was treated unfairly. And for those who believe that it’s perfeclty okay for the current DA of Los Angeles, one Steve Cooley currently running for California Attorney General, who still refuses to try any one of his buddies in the Catholic Arch Diocese for molesting and raping children going back decades. He is a joke and a disgrace.

To finish, I’m tired of having to continue to post and repost stuff on message boards and other blogs about this case. It’s tiresome and frankly, getting to the point of ridiculousness. In this day and age where Google is available and readily handy with any facts you care to avail yourself of, there is no excuse for the lack of research not done.


Due to someone deciding to use my story of my own rape for his own delusional rantings on the Roman Polanski board over at IMDB, I’ve had to make the post “Polanski Pt 2 … No Hard Feelings” password protected. I will not have my story used as some kind of fodder for someone’s own pleasure. The post was disgusting and vulgar. According to this poster, my story was concocted and therefore is perfectly acceptable to rip apart. This is in retalliation for my posts there on Samantha Geimer’s case.

I will state here: Samantha Geimer is now a public figure. She chose to go to the news media and to a tabloid show in 1997 to tell her story. She has chosen to make herself known and as such, anything in her case is available to the public under the Freedom of Informations Act or FOIA. Most of the transcripts, reports and any other rulings have been made public or have been made accessible through various media outlets. This means her story is available as any other court case to be examined. My story of my rape, however, is my own intellectual property and is not subject to being republished or reposted anywhere else without my prior written, verbal or given agreement. Therefore, at this time, I have taken it offline in order that this person cannot exploit my story to his own whims.

I will state here once and for all, I was raped on 21 December 1977. I am a rape survivor, however, I will not be victimized again. So to this one poster, if you have saved anything of my blog to repost someplace else, I will find it and have it deleted once more. You had no right to take my story and mock it. You had no right to take my rape and contort it to your own aims. My story and my case is not public. There are no public documents available for anyone’s perusal. Therefore my story is not for your musings.

I’ll have more on the Polanski case in the days to come.


DA opposes Polanski’s request for sealed testimony

1 hour, 52 minutes ago
By The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES, Calif. – Prosecutors are asking a Los Angeles judge to reject a request by Roman Polanski’s attorneys to unseal transcripts of closed-door testimony in the case.

Polanski’s attorneys want a judge to unseal testimony earlier this year by the original prosecutor handling the case, Roger Gunson. They say it will help their efforts to fight Polanksi’s extradition from Switzerland, where he remains on house arrest.

Prosecutors on Thursday argued in a court filing that Polanski’s motion should be rejected because he remains a fugitive.

A hearing on the issue has been scheduled for Monday afternoon.

Los Angeles prosecutors want the Oscar-winning director returned to face sentencing on a charge he had unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

Original Article

It seems Steve Cooley is doing everything he can to make sure Rittenband’s actions that caused Polanski to flee, never see the light of day. What I’d like to ask is: What exactly is Steve Cooley afraid of?

I’m not quite sure if it’s because he feels that without Polanski physically present, he’s not going to get…what, elected? Is he so insipid he must attach his name to Roman Polanski’s in order to get his 15 minutes? I truly do not understand this man. He claims to be for ‘law and order and the American Way’, but what exactly is he doing in prolonging this case? Does he think he’s going to get some kind of karmic cookie in the end?

This case has already gone on long enough. Thirty three years is enough. Roman Polanski has taken all he should be required to take at the hands of the California Legal System. It abused him at the time his wife, Sharon Tate and four others were murdered at his home in 1969, and it abused him again in 1977 with this case. Everyone else excepting Steve Cooley, Dave Walgren, Peter Espinoza and the ghost of Laurence J. Rittenband want this case over and done with. Roman Polanski wants to go home to France and be a father and a husband. Samantha Geimer wants this case over and done with so she can…do whatever it is she does…Douglas Dalton wants this case overwith so he can retire knowing he did what he did do and finally cleared Polanski’s name, Roger Gunson wants this case over and done with because he may be ill and wants to know justice was finally done. What is so wrong with that? All parties win. Steve Cooley seems to want to shoot himself in the foot while running with scissors. He’s a calamity. Someone who doesn’t know when they’re acting like a fool.

I’d like to know what is in that transcript Roger Gunson gave to Chad Hummel and Bart Dalton (Polanski’s attorneys) that is so incendiary that Cooley seems to think it cannot be opened? Cooley it seems is practicing his own version of the law. Is the defense not allowed to offer their evidence? Are they not allowed to defend their client and be certain that everything the can use, will be used without having to be hamstrung by a zealous prosecutor? It seems to me that Cooley has his foot caught in a trap and is trying to chew it off without the benefit of painkillers.

The only thing that I can think of that would make Cooley so desperate is that he thinks if Polanski is seen in the orange jumpsuit with the chains and the shackles, it won’t look good for the PR campaign he needs to keep positive for his upcoming election. “Wow, Mr. Cooley…wouldn’t that look neat seeing a 76 year-old man being brought to California on your watch in chains?” There is absolutely no reason to not allow the unsealing of Gunson’s statement. To have the appearance of transparency, allowing this to be opened would make Cooley look like he’s at least playing by the rules. To fight to keep it secret still, is only showing how Cooley not only doesn’t play fair, but that his continued persecution of Roman Polanski is nothing but a smokescreen for his other failings in not prosecuting those of the Archdiocese sex scandal currently plaguing California. Add to that, the class action lawsuit filed by his fellow DAs and ADAs who have charged Cooley with fraud and invasion of privacy. But hey, that’s just a minor point. Cooley has had not one, but several law suits filed against him. Roman Polanski has had one. Who is the dangerous one Mr. Cooley?


For a long time, I was a STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION fan. What I loved about the show was how it wasn’t squeamish to take on certain topics that although it was a science fiction show, was based very much in the real world of today. Whether it was the Klingons or the Romulans, the Cardassians, or the Dominion as was the case of the spin-off to TNG, STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE NINE, there was one underlying truth about it: It dared to tackle the things we in this ‘real’ world thought was beyond the realm of possibilities. There was one episode in TNG‘s fourth season titled The Drumhead. It was an amazing episode featuring an incredible performance by guest star, the late Jean Simmons, as Starfleet Admiral Norah Satie. The plot of the episode was simply, a young Starfleet cadet named Simon Tarses is accused of committing high treason against the Federation by failing to admit his Romulan heritage. Admiral Satie goes on a futuristic witchhunt in order to weed out the corruption within Starfleet and takes Captain Picard (Patrick Stewart) to task for daring to try to defend Tarses. Within the episode’s intricate storyline, Satie believes there is further corruption inside the Federation and within the ranks of The Enterprise’s crew. She even accuses Picard of being ‘in on it’. [ Full synopsis can be found here: Wikipedia ] At a crucial point in the episode and under heavy examination by Satie’s prosecutor, Picard stops the procedings and issues this statement:

You know, there are some words I’ve known since I was a schoolboy: “With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.” Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man’s freedom is trodden on, we’re all damaged.

What Picard meant is that, with the first accusation or the first illegal thing done, there is a slippery slope that creates a landslide. This landslide continues until everything that was, is forever wiped out and nothing of what used to be, remains. I should also take the time here to give a meaning to the word drumhead What it refers to is the custom where summary justice dispensed on the battlefield, around an upended drum, where appeals were always denied. Customarily, during a drumhead trial, there is an implied lack of judicial partiality which renders almost always, a verdict of guilty and summary judgement in the form of death for the offender.

How does all of this pertain to Roman Polanski?

To say I’m dismayed at the recent rulings in the Roman Polanski case, would be undercutting what I actually feel. For some reason the California District Attorney’s office under DA Steve Cooley and DA David Walgren seem to not want to have aired certain facts of this case. I’m not sure if it has anything to do with Cooley’s current run at the Attorney General of the State of California, but there is somethering rotten in Denmark. What is particularly suspect is why no one wants to look into the gross judicial misconduct made by Judge Laurence J. Rittenband. What people fail to note, and there is a certain few posters over at Polanski’s IMDB board you can view [ HERE ], who seem to think this is just about Polanski. It isn’t.

If Rittenband has been found to have committed other cases of judicial misconduct, then this throws all of his rulings into serious review. Any link along that thing called chain of custody is suspect, then the whole case is deemed either unprosecutable, or totally unable to be adjudicated with the fullest essence of what the law is supposed to represent. It is not something that is arbitrarily used to convict those who are of a certain bracket. Whether that be gender based, class based, or even ethnically based. It is supposed to be blind. There was nothing blind about what Judge Rittenband was doing to Roman Polanski. By nature of his refusal to accept the terms of the plea bargain, Rittenband excercised not only poor judgement, but allowed his own record throughout his career become susceptable to review. And any fair verdict of those actually guilty of their offense, could now be subject to reversal and perhaps even, freedom for those actually guilty of committing crimes more serious than the one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor that Polanski was not convicted of, but rather, pled to under a scripted dramatic reading in Rittenband’s courtroom.

In the NBC procedural LAW & ORDER: SPEICAL VICTIMS UNIT fifth season episode “Poison”, guest star Tom (“Alien”) Skerritt played the part of Judge Oliver Taft. Taft came under the scorn of ADA Casey Novak played by Diane Neal for his class bias. With a mirror turned, it might well have been the Roman Polansk case. Here it is in its entirety:

What is astonishing here is that the plot of this episode is exactly what happened in the Roman Polanski case; the judge having total control over everything from how the ADA dressed to the way the child was more or less best up on in the Taft’s chambers. Why this means so much to me is that without transparency in our courts, houses of government and in those places were we expect to have parity, we cannot truly say that such things are transparent. Unless we demand this of our judges, prosecutors, senators, politicians, we remain linked forever to that all too rare of birds, forfeiting our rights for those of a select few who dictate our futures. And without proper review and that aspect of being allowed to A) confront our accusors, and B) demand transparency, we are giving up our human freedoms. Just because a select few deem Roman Polanski a criminal from a proceeding that was by its very aspect, illegal, we are setting a dangerous precedent we can never recover from.

Roman Polanski was never convicted. That is a fallacy often repeated for the purient interest of those refusing to learn the facts. He was never truly found guilty due to the impropriety of Rittenband’s courtroom. That it has been recently revealed that Roger Gunson, the original prosecutor in the case, has given sworn testimony which can be read here: Roman Polanski Appeals Document (PDF format) ], that Rittenband engaged in illegal conduct, and that the current presiding judge, Espinoza, has refused to allow the unsealing of that document leaves Espinoza with nothing more than the taint of Rittenband towering over his courtroom. Again, another link forged in the judicial persecution of Roman Polanski. What is shocking is that no one other than Polanski’s supporters seem to care about this. There is the notion that because Roman Polanski is not an American, he doesn’t deserve the full rights and freedoms given to those inside the United States. This conjures some kind of absolute rule of kings those who left England for the New World, sought to escape from. Where only the elite can dictate what will or will not happen to those of us on the ground. Some might even state that Roman Polanski has enough money to defend himself. He’s rich. Well, not so much. The erroneous belief that Polanski whose net worth back in 1977 was cited as being no more than $60, 000.00 American, is a rich man, is not true. He has a limited coffer from which to pull. And all of these legal arguments he’s been forced to fight, he is has little left. Consider too, how much interest the Swiss are pulling from the $4.5 million dollar bail Polanski had to post in order to be released to his Gstaad chalet. One has to wonder if this isn’t an orchestrated move on Cooley and Co’s behalf to bleed the man dry.

It concerns me too that no matter what Polanski does, it seems the Americans are not held to the same standard. The Obama government has still yet to hand over five CIA agents who were sentenced and found guilty in absentia by an Italian court of law for the abduction and torture of a suspected terrorist they spirited from an Italian street, and flown to Egypt where the torture took place. The man was also waterboarded. It appears the man may not have been guilty. Considering there is no evidence whatsoever in this case against Polanski, the same thing that happened to that suspected terrorist, may also happen to Polanski. While I don’t think waterboarding will be a possibility, the notion that a 76 year-old man who has conducted himself with grace and dignity before his flight and after, should be subjected to this behaviour, is plainly sick. When the Americans refuse to do the same with one of theirs, is it any wonder why Polanski refuses to voluntarily hand himself over to a system that has not, nor has it ever been willing to deal with this case fairly and without taint?

All this leaves me with something from the immortal David Bowie. It’s the video to his masterpiece I’M AFRAID OF AMERICANS.

In conclusion: For a country that likes to pride itself on its fairness and its supposed air of being the world’s watchdog and purveyor of justice, it sure doesn’t practice it. And the Roman Polanski case is rife with just the very things that American’s should be questioning…but aren’t. So in that, I’m afraid of Americans. I’m afraid I can’t help it. I’m afraid I can’t…..


I had started out this post as a letter to a friend of mine in discussion to something he passed onto me about the Polanski case regarding Anjelica Huston’s part in all of this, however, after I began writing I found this deserved to be a blog post. Why? Simple. It has some issues that have been further nagging me since Roman Polanski’s arrest and subsequent re-vilification of him since then by a many numbered member of the global lynch mob brigade who are beating themselves into orgasmic delight in wanting his blood spilled by any number of disgusting fashions. So I decided to make this a blog post. So here we go.

First of all, an explanation of the title of the post. History is a lie agreed upon is something David Milch of “Deadwood” fame coined in trying to put history into perspective. What it means is that the ones who ‘sings the songs’ as The Who put it, are the ones who get to tell their side of the truth, no matter if it is or not. They are the victors, the ones putting out the ‘facts’ as such so therefore they are controlling the medium and the amount of fact streamed to the hungry masses. It doesn’t matter if it resembles the truth, just a fraction of it so as to make it acceptable to anyone who might question the realness of the information. So in essence what is happening is there is the perception of fact, when in all actuality, there is little of it that even makes the airwaves or reams of newsprint committed to giving the hungry citizenry what they want, which is a sensationalistic version of what is in all actuality, a form of prevarication…or a lie agreed upon so that those involved. As long as there is some variance of the actual truth in there someplace, those who do put this stuff out are somehow able to live with themselves. Despite the fact that those who read this stuff are largely lazy of just wanting the three minute version of the events, rather than the actual truth. So in effect what is left over is the lie agreed upon. The press agrees to lie to the public and the public agree to accept their facts as given. History is full of such inaccuracies. So is the case of the State of California V Roman Polanski.

The Q&A below is from the Grand Jury testimony by Samantha Geimer, our presumed ‘victim’ at the head of this case against Roman Polanski. It should be read with an account that she is testifying under oath and subject to perjury. The below is from Prosecutor Roger Gunson and Ms. Geimer about what she did after her return home after the most traumatizing afternoon of her life:

Q. After you arrived home with Mr. Polanski on
March 10th and before you went to the doctor, did you have a
bowel movement?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have a douche?
A. No.
Q. Did you have a bath?
A. No.
Q. Did you have a shower?
A. No.

According to Dr. Edward Larson who conducted the examination of Geiemr at Parkland, he noted to the Grand Jury that he found nothing consistent with any kind of vaginal or anal tearing, He also noted that she didn’t have anything resembling trauma. He also said he examined her with a sigmoidascopy, I can tell you those are not nice I’ve had two in my time, but they could in fact, do more damage to someone than anal intercourse can. Okay, getting off track here. Sorry. But from reading it, I plainly got the impression that this doctor found nothing to indicate any kind of anal penetration. And what gets me further is that Geimer claimed she put on her panties three times, after she got out of the jaccuzi, after the first anal ‘rape’ and then after the ‘second’. She then claims that the semen was coming out of her anus and was sort of smooshed into the panties. Flash forward to when she returned home, lied about the asthma attack and went into her bedroom. She claimed she got into her nightgown and then called her boyfriend, Steve. Steve came over and went into her bedroom. This causes all kinds of problems for me.

Here she is, the ‘victim’ of this horrendous ‘rape’ by this man she was ‘scared’ of, yet she has no qualms about letting Steve into her room with her. I can tell you from my experience, you don’t want to be alone with ANY man, let alone your boyfriend. I remember with mine, he never understood why I didn’t want him near me or to touch me. I’m still like that today. I’ll confess, I’m bi-sexual and have been with my partner (a woman) for close to 30 years now. I do know I’m still touch sensitive. If she touches me a certain way, I either jump, or have to pull back from her because it is what is called ‘touch memory’ of something that happened. For me, it was when my rapist came up to me and was holding me against his body before he began the rape. Even though I know my partner will not hurt me, it’s still the sensation that I’m being held or not allowed to leave of my own accord. Yet, here Geimer was allowing this guy into her room while she’s in her nightgown? Makes no sense. So my question has to be this one, She was still apparently wearing the underwear she was wearing from Nicholson’s house, so why sit in Polanski’s ‘filth’ while talking to the boyfriend? Did she like sitting in that? Was she getting some kind of a thrill out of it, or was there no sperm in the panties UNTIL Steve and she perhaps put it there? Then suddenly that’s when the police were called by the mother.

There is no independent evidence of what happened after she returned home and after Polanski left. We do not know what was said or ‘planned’ at that time. So if we do take into consideration that Polanski did ask her about being on birth control and not wanting her to become pregnant, why not lie and say that she was so she could get pregnant by him? There is according to what evidence we have here, absolutely no DNA linking Polanski to her in any way. At least Monica Lewinsky held onto that blue dress and didn’t launder it or send it out to be dry cleaned! One would think that if Susan had been THAT intelligent, they’d have kept something that would have had Polanski’s DNA matter on it.

Still further, Gunson in the Grand Jury testimony questioned both Vannatter and the chemist who testified that there was something that appeared to be sperm. In fact, he was 90% certain it was. However, what kind of testing was done? Namely, what kind of typing and sub-typing was done? At that point, there was no RFLP or even RNA sequencing that would have determined definite ownership of that DNA matter. Back when Sharon was murdered, the blood guy who took samples in the immediate vicinity of each of the victims, plus various spaltters on the baseboards leading to Sharon and Roman’s bedroom, plus at the front inside entry, the porch and on the walkway leading outside the front door. In all cases, he found that the typing and sub-typing belonged to the victim in the nearest proximty to the blood stains or major collection. The only place he had difficulty was directly on the front porch where the largest bit belonged to victim Voytek Frykowski, but there was a mixture of Frykowski’s, plus Jay Sebring and Sharon Tate. In the forensics taken by Joe Granado, he found there to be three types of blood taken on the porch and tested it as belonging to Voytek Frykowski, Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring. So I posit this: If blood typing and sub-typing was being done even back in 1969 when forensics was still in its relative infancy, who difficult woult it be to type and sub-type semen? How difficult would it have been to take a court compelled blood sample from Roman Polanski, then compare it in terms of type and sub-type to the semen found on the panties? But then both Roger Gunson and Philip Vannatter would have had to contend with that nasty little thing called >CHAIN OF CUSTODY. It was known that the panties were not collected until two days after the event. Technically, they should have been collected at the time of the rape kit exam at Parland Hospital. According to Samantha Gemier’s own testimony, she’d been wearing a blue dress at the time she left Nicholson’s house, saying goodbye to the woman who was there on her way out. So if she ‘Lewinskied’, there should ahve been evidence of sperm on her dress since she claimed she dressed ASAP to ‘get out of there’. She was wearing no other garments such as a bra, or stockings, so there would have been transference from her skin and seepage through the underwear onto the dress. Transference is the likely reason there was a mixture of blood on the flagstone porch at 10050 Cielo Drive on the night of the Tate murders. Yet according to the forensics that came back after scientific tests, her anus, vagina, vaginal lips, dress and other places where one would have expected to find semen or seminal fluids, all came back as negative…yet no tests were done on the panties? Makes no sense.

I mentioned that Geimer admitted to having taken no shower, no bath, no enema, no douche, this according to her testimony to Roger Gunson during the Grand Jury session. One thing I should explain about what is done during a Grand Jury session. The perponderance of the evidence the prosecutor has to prove is next to nothing. It is essentially, a star chamber proceeding. The prosecutor is basically, the lone inquisitor. He alone asks the questions put to the various witnesses who are called in a certain order so as to piece together his/her case to gain an indictment against the perpetrator who has the presumption of innocence until a jury of twelve render their verdict, or in some cases, a judge rules. It is the defendant who decides between a jury trial, judge trial or to accept a plea bargain if it is beneficial to their case. So in essence, during the Grand Jury procedings, there is no one else in the room except for the prosecutor, the particular witness and 21-23 members of a ‘professional’ panel who issues the indictment based on the lowest mix of the evidence and testimony provided. In this case, Gunson called very few poeple into the Grand Jury room. According to the list on the official transcript, it included Samantha Jane Gailey, Philip Vannatter, and six others that included the medical doctor who examined Geimer. There is no cross-examination allowed by the defense who could call into question whatever collected evidence or bias the particular wintess had in the case. In this case, Douglas Dalton could have hammered away at the testimony given by Geimer and noted the inconsistencies in her statements as to the donning and undonning of her underwear or any other given set of clothing she took with her that day…as selected by Roman Polanski, according to her. Susan Gailey’s parental skills could have been called into question. Philip Vannatter’s evidence collection skills could have been questioned, god knows we know he’s prone to carrying around vials of blood laced with EDTA and running shoes kept in the trunk of his car for at least twenty-four hours after removal from a supposed crime scene. So this goes back to evidence. Is it circumstantial evidence? Not even close. This is technically, no evidence at all since there is no concrete proof Roman Polanski ‘raped’ this poor helpless little ‘kid’. So where do we go from here?

I think the easiest way to go would be for someone independent of the case to explore its intracasies. Certainly there are so many agendas here the real truth is getting lost within the pages of minutae and scripted sound bites logged in their many forms accross the spectrum. The mainstream press is controlled by the corporations who cannot in any way be seen as supporting a much vilified man when it comes to reporting the truth. That’s the reason to a certain degree, I wish Roman Polanski would allow himself to be returned to the United States, withdraw his original plea, or scripted plea, and force a trial. Then and only then would the real truth be exposed. All the remaining witnesses would be compelled to testify, including Samantha Geimer whose Grand Jury testimony could clearly be impeached by the evidence of fact. Steve Cooley would then be forced to wipe that egg off his face with that one simple actuality, her statements that fly in the face of what the truth is. Cooley’s balls would be in a sling if the truth actually came out, and all skeletons aired. I understand completely Roman Polanski’s reasons for not wanting to set foot on American soil. He has responsibilities now. It’s not as simple as it might have been say in the 80s when he was still a single man. He must take his son, daughter and wife’s feelings into consideration. Sitting in his chalet in Switerland certainly is a better position for him to be in. Would there truly be someone who could and would examine this case with a clare and unbiased eye? I would hope there would be, but there’s no Innocence Project knocking on Polanski’s door. No one other than Douglas Dalton, his son and Chad Hummel are willing to take on the truth and expose it. I’m still feeling even his California lawyers are lagging a bit. They’ve gone after Welles and others in hopes of swaying opinion. What they should be doing is going straight to the heart of the case, which is the evidence and Geimer’s Grand Jury testimony. They should be highlighting the fact there is no evidence at all in terms of forensics and or medical evidence. And that is disturbing. Why not attack Geimer and her initial testimony. Go after her words and expose that what happened and what is are two totally different things. Go deeper than the Zenovich documentary did and actually show that Geimer’s statements don’t jibe with the evidence that is in the record, definitely not the part of it ever dared to release. They put the two relevant portions of the transcript up on their website, but not the ones that actually contain the truth of it all. Namely, the portions containing the medical evidence and the portions containing the testimony delivered by Dr. Larson himself.

I think what I don’t get about all this is why did Samantha Geimer allow herself to be used in such a disgusting way? Why would she allow herself to undergo an intensely personal examination when it was clear her body bore none of the allegations she contended in her ‘harrowing’ account of fending off a crazed pervert. I know for me after my rape, recounted in a previous post, I certainly couldn’t have gone through that. The violation was too deep, too personal. What did she and her mother hope to gain? And what kind of a mother would have allowed their daughter to go through such an ordeal? I have only one conclusion about Susan Gailey. Today she would likely be diagnosed with Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, a pathology accepted by the DSM (The Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) as containing these characteristics:

  • a condition that involves the exaggeration or fabrication of illnesses or symptoms by a primary caretaker
  • the individual is usually the mother, who deliberately makes another person (most often their own child) sick
  • the parent misleads others into thinking that the child has medical problems by lying and reporting fictitious episodes
  • they will exaggerate or even fabricate symptoms
  • there is an element of satisfaction at knowing they’ve deceived professionals into performing often times needless examinations or surgeries in order to feel more important and powerful

Does this pertain to Susan Gailey? Perhaps. Did she concoct this ‘evidence’ in order to gain some kind of noteriety and when the proof didn’t match the story she and Samantha weaved, did she suddenly decide to backtrack and ask for the plea bargain? Did she realize that Polanski was facing a series of charges that could have brought him up to the 50 years Rittenband had threatened Polanski with? Is that the reason two court appointed psychiatrists stated that there had been an air of permissiveness within the home? Did they know something about the mother and Geimer we didn’t? It is telling neither classed Polanski as any kind of pervert or sexual offender. Neither did they deem him as likely to reoffend. And that has come to pass. Over the past 31 years since he fled injustice in the United States, not one other ‘victim’ has come forward to state Roman Polanski ever did anything to them. One might have thought with the amount of publicity his 2009 Swiss arrest generated, there might have been a flurry of women coming forward to state he’d molested or raped them. But there haven’t been. According to Geimer, no other person but she has ever accused him of doing anything. So why doesn’t Geimer actually do something to end this once and for all by giving an interview on Oprah or some other noteable news show and tell the truth. Tell the truth of what it actually was, not an act of perversion done to her, but rather an act of perversion done to him in order to gain some kind of fame through him. It wouldn’t have been the first time a publicity hungry mother has put their child ahead of the child’s best interests. But then Geimer is old enough now to state for herself why this was done if she truly wants it over and done with. She’s proven that she’s articulate, somewhat intelligent. People have listened to her, sought her out for her story. People magazine featured her in their December 15, 1997 issue where she stated this:

Even now, so-called experts are using my situation on TV talk shows to push their own points, which have nothing to do with how I feel. Twenty years ago everything said about me was horrible. But these days it’s not fashionable to bad-mouth the victim. Now I’m all ready to stand up and defend myself and everyone is saying “oh, you poor thing.” But I’m not a poor thing. And I can’t oblige everyone by becoming freaked out and upset just to make things sound more interesting.

If this is how she truly felt then, why not make a clean break and say what really happened. Even her statements in the Marina Zenovich documentary “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired” don’t ring true. Here was her chance to finally air the unfettered truth, the one that dare not speak its name, yet she is still hanging on her initial claims of victimhood. If she feels that it isn’t fashionable to ‘bad mouth the victim’, fine. Come out with the truth, no one will certainly bad mouth her. In fact, people would likely pat her on the back one more time for being gutsy enough to tell the truth. So why with the lack of evidence against Roman Polanski doesn’t she just drop the pretenses and hyperbole and just tell the truth? Or is her version of it more titillating to tell. She also said this to People:

WHEN I FIRST MET ROMAN Polanski I was living with my mother and sister in the San Fernando Valley. It wasn’t Ozzie and Harriet, but we had a nice family life. My mother was a working actress, and I wanted to be like her. I wanted to be famous—a movie star. But I was really just on the edge of ceasing to be a tomboy and trying to act more like a young lady. I had a 17-year-old boyfriend who drove a Camaro, but my room was knee-deep in clothes; I had a Spider-Man poster on the wall and I kept pet rats.

That she said she wanted to be just like her mother, an actress, and she wanted to be famous, is she afraid the light will shine less brightly on her if the truth is told? To me, it has to do with the infamy she’s gained through attaching herself on the coattails of Roman Polanski. So why not come out with the truth and let the dust fall, fade away into that infamy just like Moncia Lewinsky or Paula Jones or Patricia Bowman? This is nothing more than another Duke Lacrosse allegation unproven by the facts that nothing happened. No proof of any attack, rape or act of savagery. Only and act of a woman wanting to get famous from her daughter’s rendezvous with the director of “Rosemary’s Baby” and “Chinatown”. Given what she said in her Grand Jury testimony that didn’t jibe with the evidence in this case, why did the Grand Jury take so little time in assessing the facts and issue the six count indictment against Polanski? Why did they not see there was no evidence at all here. Nothing but a few allegations unproven? Or was that the lie that was agreed upon?


It seems the recent Christmas Day arrest of actor Charlie Sheen for domestic abuse, is enough to throw people into a flurry of message board and blogotory rage. “How dare that Charlie hold a knife to that dear woman’s throat and threaten her life,” is the mantra I’ve been reading. Even on one (mentioned [ HERE ] ) where this blogger’s name and reputation have taken a steady beating for suggesting that some women should be smacked for their constant stupidity for marrying men who are known abusors. This on the heels of the fact that Charlie’s wife, Brooke Mueller Sheen, has decided to drop the charges against Sheen and take him back to work on their marriage. With that, it now appears that the Aspen police are now seeking to charge Mueller with filing a false report. So what happens on that aforementioned website? They begin spewing bile my way for being what they’re calling, a female mysogynist. This despite the fact that Mueller has lawyered up to fight the charges of filing a false report and the girl was so devastated over the attack that left her so afraid and in fear of her life, she was found out and about in Aspen at a joint where Paris Hilton and Gerard Butler were seen. Seems domestic abuse isn’t what it used to be.

What particularly gets me about Brooke Mueller’s alleged assault, is that her call into the 911 dispatcher came at about 8:30 AM Christmas Day. Both Mr & Mrs. Sheen blew over the limit for alcohol consumption. At 8:30 AM in the morning, and what is worse, is that Mueller had just given birth nine months ago to twin boys. No word where the boys where at the time of the incident, but what the hell is a woman whose just given birth nine months ago doing getting herself totally wasted on the morning of what is supposed to be your twins’ first Christmas? One could easily understand Ms. Mueller’s concern if Sheen were a raging alcoholic who was going around weilding a weapon and threatening everyone in the house, but this wasn’t the case.

Police released Mueller’s 911 call where she slurs through her accusations stating, “I have to file this report,” almost as if she knows she has to set some kind of paper trail in case she wishes to divorce a guy she knew had a shakey rep with women. Then comes the news that Ms. Mueller had a prior DUI arrest back in 1996 where she was arrested for blowing over the limit and running into a sign she claimed through her drunken haze, she didn’t hit. At the time she also tested positive for Quaaludes. Does anyone still think she’s worth all this handwrining?

I’ve been called a mysogynist due to my stating that I feel that some women deserve to be smacked as actor Sean Connery stated back in the 1990s to Barbara Walters:

On this aforementioned website I linked to above, Sean’s fans are now former fans, disdainful that Sir Sean had the audacity to say this. For me it has to do with the cycle women who put up with abuse subject not only themselves to, but their children.

As most studies have noted, there is a cycle of abuse with these women is set in stone. There is the first hit, then the second, then the third. Often times it escalates to more than that in the form of rape, shooting, and sometimes death. What I have never understood about women who go through this cycle is how they don’t see it coming. There are always pre-cursors in the form of men who go buck nutty if their underwear, sweaters, socks aren’t folded right and put away in the little cubby holes in their wardrobes, or the drawers in their dressers. Often times it’s about when dinner should be on the table, and the slow weeding out of denying her the right to go anywhere without his say so. Or there is the part where he demands to know what friends she’s seeing and cutting her off from those friends. Then finally, cutting her off from her family. What I don’t get about these women is, how do they allow it to get from the first hit or the first display of psychotic behaviour? How does a woman allow that man to carry so much power, it escalates to the rest? The women I don’t understand are the ones with children. You know, the little ones who have no choice but to be there when dad is going caveman on mom. The ones that shouldn’t even be there had the woman walked away at the first signs of their man’s controlling behaviour. And like I said, there is always the pre-cursor to this behaviour. But this is the time where she should walk, not when it’s escalated to the point that both she and her children are in danger.

My feeling is, any woman who goes back for seconds from any man who’s done this, is telling the man to hit her again. It’s giving the man entitlement to abuse and debase again. What, the first time wasn’t enough? And the notion is that love will conquer all and he will change, isn’t enough. If he hit you once, he’ll hit you again. The film Sleeping with the Enemy starring Julia Roberts is the prime example of how this thing keeps going. The Patrick Bergin character is not drawn from nothing. He does exist. The neat freak who will smack her if she doesn’t keep the towels the right length on the bar, or the cans stacked properly in the cupboard. But the one thing Julia did was she got out of the situation. She left. And when Patrick’s character came after her, she did what she had to do to protect herself. We’re not living in The Burning Bed era anymore. I don’t understand why women haven’t empowered themselves to the point, these types of situations don’t keep happening.

There was a character on the NBC show Law & Order: Special Victims Unit played by the lovely Norwegian actress Connie Nielsen who was subbing for series star Mariska Hargitay who was on maternity leave at the time. The character was named Dani Beck, a former Warrant Officer who was transferred to the Sixteenth to be partnered with Det. Elliot Stabler (Christopher Meloni). In the episode Confrontation, a rapist returns to his victims’ homes to rape them again. It turns out, he is trying to get them pregnant, revisiting when they are most fertile in order to ‘seal the deal’. One woman who has become pregnant, refuses to tell her husband the baby she’s carrying might be that of her rapist. At one point, Dani confronts Elliot about the sickness of a woman who decides to have her rapist’s baby. Elliot reminds us once more of the fact his old partner, Olivia Benson, is the child of rape. Dani becomes incensed due to the fact that women have choices today Benson’s mother didn’t back when she was raped. Dani tells the victim that she should be more careful of where she goes, what she does, that no matter what is going on, she has to make sure she takes care of number one. What resulted from that episode’s airing was a systematic slamming of the character of Dani Beck to the point that women, were telling her to “shut the fuck up bitch”. Ironcially, they’d rather have the docile and sisterly type of Olivia Benson to hold their hands and stroke their hair and tell them it wasn’t their fault sooner than heed Det. Beck’s words about taking care of themselves and watching what’s going on around them. I personally, don’t understand the idea that being careful was so wrong.

Where celebrity women like Rhianna can go on Oprah and bare her soul about the abuse she suffered from Chris Brown, and Whitney Huston can relate her torturous marriage to Bobby Brown and her own drug addiction she blamed on Bobby Brown, this says one thing to woman: You are not responsible for your actions. So you can blame the guy all you want, there will always be someone there to hold your hand through it all, you need not lift a finger to help yourself, Oprah will always have a program about this and you can feel uplifted because Oprah or Tyra has helped you feel good for an hour out of your life. The reality still exists you put yourself into the situation and no one but you can get yourself out. Don’t let the second time be a third, or a fourth.

What also gets me about this particular message board and the hive mind that constitutes its posters, is the other side of this board’s purpose. It houses various message boards on Soap Operas, including the continually repulsive former jewel in ABC’s daytime crown, General Hospital. The show has become what has been dubbed in soapdom as Mob Central due to its reliance on underworld boss Sonny Corinthos (played by Maurice Benard) and his main muscle Jason Morgan (Steve Burton) as the main focus. Sonny and Jason’s exploits include fathering many children from their different conquests, and abusing the women around them. Sonny in particular. was infamous for throwing a full glass of water at his then pregnant wife, Carly (then played by Tamara Braun) and this man is considered a hero for women. That to me just smells of fucked up. He then accused Carly of having a secret tryst with another man, his rival Lorenzo Alcazar (Ted King) and flagrantly flaunting it out in the open. Of course, Carly couldn’t question him or argue with him. Her voice was lost in it all, only his rantings and ravings were allowed voice. His feelings of betrayal and hurt. His rantings are too much, he drives the nine month pregnant Carly out into a stormy night to a house outside of the city of Port Charles where Carly trips down some stairs and goes into premature labour. When Alcazar arrives to help her deliver the baby, Sonny also arrives hearing Carly screaming from inside. Instead of entering to see what is going on, he busts in seeing Alcazar and fires a gun, the bullet doing what all single bullets do, goes through Alcazar and lodges into Carly’s cranium. Before she lapses into a coma, Carly delivers her baby into Sonny’s arms. Then after Carly awakens from her coma weeks later and due to the fact she’s fighting feelings for Alcazar, Sonny files for and wins sole custody of their sons Michael and the now named infant Morgan. Only under Robert Guza Jr.’s poison pen are men like this considered heroes, and women non entities. Is it any wonder?

How does this all relate back to Ms. Mueller? Plenty. This notion that this woman is the vicitm of a nasty piece of work named Charlie Sheen is nonsense. Was she truly in danger for her life so much, that she was seen smiling a couple days later after this horrific attack? Not likely. The only ones in danger are those of us who have to hear about this incident and be told that the Sheens are a loving couple who want to work on their marriage. It doesn’t even pass the gag test. It’s not like there wasn’t any warning of Sheen’s behaviour. His nasty divorce from F-Lister actress Denise Richards should have been ample warning to Ms. Mueller. And not anymore than one year into the marriage, Ms. Mueller becomes pregnant with twin boys. Then on this message board, or Bored Hausfraus Central and co-dependent aholics, I’m told that I’m a whole whack of sick for taking the man’s side in it all after I explained that there might be something else to the story, and that Sheen might not have done it. Well lo and behold, there is something more to the story. Namely, Ms. Mueller’s past addiction and DUI. Should that matter to this story? Certainly. It shows prior behaviour and shows she tried to get out of the DUI arrest.

Another interesting turn on this message board I’ve named above, is this notion that men are seemingly always the aggressors. By virtue of their body weight and size, they are able to overtake an average sized woman without batting an eye. Even if this were to pass the laugh test, I mentioned that only a little while ago, it was believed a man could never ben abused or raped by a woman. As depicted on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit in the third season’s Ridicule, a male stripper files a suit against three women for rape. The ever schmuckish Det. Stabler refuses to believe a man can be set upon by three women at once, in fact, it’s a wet dream. However, ADA Alexandra Cabot (Stephanie March) decides to prosecute two of the women Pamela Adler (Paige Turco) and Amelia Chase (Diane Neal, soon to play ADA Casey Novak seasons five through nine) for the rape. Though it doesn’t result in a conviction, both are found guilty for the death of the third woman Sydney Green. But Stabler’s assertions that men are not victims of rape is just one of the reasons men are never believed. That according to one poster in particular, men cannot be raped and can never be abused by women. A man who stands an average of 5’9” at about 190 lbs cannot be overpowered by a woman about 5’3” at roughly 130 lbs. Perhaps if we were living in caveman times, this likely wouldn’t be true. But today where studies have shown that women have become progressively abusive, it belies the fact that men often times don’t report abuse. Am I saying that men are whimps? No. I’m saying that to naturally believe the woman in cases such as the Sheen schmazzle is to totally negate that women are often times the agressors. Am I taking the man’s side in this, am I taking Sheen’s side? No. And there was never a time I was on that board. I was merely stating that there was more to this story than another OJ/Nicole situation. And that was proven out by Ms. Mueller’s appearance mere days after this traumatic event. There she was, smiling and being seen at an Aspen nightspot. No where was it mentioned she had any wounds on her throat from the supposed knife attack she contended happened. Then comes the news the police are charging her with filing a false police report. Doesn’t help her story one iota.

I’ve been told I hate women. I only hate certain women who make it more difficult for others to be taken seriously. It’s in this vein that I say, some and I mean some women deserve to be smacked in order to wake them up to the things they do to themselves in the name of whatever they feel constitutes love. As one of my previous posts told, I am the survivor of rape. I was 13 at the time and the rape happened in my bedroom. My sense of safety since then has been paramount to me. Like what Dani Beck said in that episode of SVU, I take care to mark myself in my surroundings. I don’t flaunt myself conspicuously. I don’t dress provocatively, I don’t say to men, “I’m a vicitm, humiliate me and debase me.” I stay silent, under the wire so as not to bring any kind of overt attention to myself. I make sure my cell phone is charged and that people know where I am and where I’m supposed to be. I don’t go to bars because I hate them. I don’t allow my drinks to go unattended because I only drink tea and water and they’re never out of my sight. I never go to the bathroom without leaving someone there I trust to take care of my tea or water. When I’ve been in what I’ve felt is a bad situation with a man, I’ve gotten myself out of it and never repeated the behaviour. So in that, I don’t understand women who will not take care of themselves and each other and who refuse to see the flaws in the women who make false allegations against their boyfriends/lovers/husbands. Mueller is no poster child for this. She shouldn’t even be considered such, but to some, they want to herald her as some kind of banner to womanhood, paint her in the same light as Whitney Huston, Rhianna and Nicole Brown Simpson as reasons to decry my advocating on the side of caution. So far against Sheen, they’re only allegations. He’ll answer the charges in February 2010. By that time, the charges will likely be dropped and or dropped or filed against Mueller. So in the end, who is the true vicitm here? And like my defense of Roman Polanski, I will not say I’m defending Charlie Sheen, I’m only saying that he should be given the chance to tell his side of the story. Knee jerk attitudes are alright if there’s evidence to prove such charges, but so far all we have is a report of a knife being drawn and slapping. Nothing concrete. We have evidence of wounds on a throat, but we don’t know how they got there. Sheen deserves the right to be innocent before the courts, not tarred and feathered just because a bunch of nasty loopy cunts decide they want to fry one more penis for womanhoodry.

Polanski: “No Hard Feelings” …. Pt 2

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.

Now despite what anyone may think would be the fitting punishment for director Roman Polanski, even if he’s returned to the States on the 32 year-old charges of unlawful sex with a minor, laws state that he won’t get what people want him to get. Namely. tossed in prison with the key thrown in the Pacific. It won’t happen. Even the issue of the flight to France would be off the table if the case is completely thrown out. But according to the California Penal Code contained in subsection (b) of section 4530, Polanski could receive up to 16 months to two or three years in prison to be served consecutively. Though if the case is throwing up completely after the appeals process is done, it too will be vacated because it is connected to the initial crime. Ergo, no crime…no need to flee.

It is still amazing to me the amount of people who refuse to STILL look at the facts of this case. Those are that the term ‘unlawful sexual intercourse’ is tantamount to consensual sex, no matter which way anyone wants to cut it. The fact that Geimer was thirteen at the time, is the only matter in which anything illegal happened. So far as this blogger can tell, there is no evidence against Polanski other than the panties containing what appeared to be semen.

According to Geimer’s (nee Gailey) initial testimony, which all posters on message boards love to point to on website, she testified Polanski had ‘entered’ her through the back or ‘butt’ as she called it. She also stated that he’d performed ‘Cuddliness’ on her. Cunnilingus for the uninitiated. However, acccording to the medical and scientific evidence, all slides came back negative. For anyone having seen any one episode of “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit”, this means no force and no noticeable intercourse took place. Tissues around the anus are so sensitive that any kind of insertion of anything larger than a pencil, would cause damage, yet Geimer had no visible tearing or bruising either anally or vaginally. There was no hint of saliva, which would also have been present in the panties, except, no blood typing or sub-typing took place. This leaves one conclusion of the medical and scientific evidence fails, either no sex occurred, or some kind of consensual sex occurred. Meaning that whatever sex happened, was not rape or force, rather a simple act of saying ‘yes’.

Most would consider that Geimer saying she said ‘no’ repeatedly would be enough to say it was rape, but with her shifting feelings on Polanski and his work, it says something else to the intelligent observer. As a rape victim myself, I can tell you no true victim of rape ever wishes the charges to be dropped against their perpetrator. NONE! They can forgive, certainly. That is the inherent nature within us all. But the fact is the hurt has been done. One who has truly been violated does not seek some kind of closure through asking for a dismissal of the charges. I know in my case, there was no trial and no reporting to the authorities, but if I had, I can tell you with certainty I’d want him to rot for what he did to me. No doubt. What I don’t know about Geimer is how she can cooperate with the Zenovich documentary without saying something about no matter what illegalities Rittenband committed, Polanski still has to do the time for what he did to me. But there’s none of that. Only saying the charges should be dropped. In her affidavit filed in January when Polanski’s lawyers asked for a dismissal of the charges, she states, “If Polanski cannot stand before this court to make this request, I, as the victim do. I have urged that this matter come to a formal end. I have urged the district attorney and the court dismiss these charges.” This goes counter to any true victim’s right to seek justice for what was horribly done to them. That she does not want ‘justice’ for herself, means there is only one reasonable conclusion: The sex was consensual.

Now before anyone comes down on me stating that a 13 year-old cannot consent, I submit they can…and do. The time when this incident occurred was not like today’s insistence on ‘protecting the child’. In fact, it was all about the child seeking independence for themselves as well as their baby boomer parents seeking to relieve themselves of parental responsibilities. Films like “The Ice Storm” starring Sigourney Weaver and Kevin Kline are indicative of what the 70s was like. Key parties, wife swapping, orgies, drinking and drugs were all the rage. This was the upswing to Disco and where Studio 54 flourished in a Dionysian dream of permissiveness and sexual liberation. This was before AIDS and the so-called ‘punishment’ for having sex began. There were no apologies given, it was just done. The moral shift began in the Regan era where ‘just say no’ was tantamount to your mother shaking her finger at you for being naughty. Evangelical ministers like Jerry Falwell and Jim Baker were preaching on the ills of the 70s, when in all actuality they were having affairs and doing the deed despite their ranting. Whatever the 70s were, I’m pretty pissed at all those wanting to conscript my era for their own, when they never lived through it. They certainly do not know of the permissive element of that time.

Portions were removed due to constant misuse of the material contained within my story of my rape…they will not be returning so don’t ask. This is the reason due to Lazy’s chronic idocy.

Looking at this testimony by Promy herself, she admits to having a tenacious sexual appetite and was not only knowledgeable of “how things work” but followed through with said comprehension. Definitely not the angel her father so believed.

Here we see that her parents themselves are more or less degenerates that shouldn’t have had kids to begin with. Where were they during the incident? Getting drunk

Here, based on her testimony, she was anxious AND enthusiastic about her sexual feelings, even going as far as to lure men to her. PURPOSELY luring OLDER men to her.

Here, we can see that she did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop him. She didn’t protest. She didn’t fight back. She didn’t even scream.

This was the only thing on her mind after the “incident”. Like she had no problem what-so-ever about what had just happened. And why not? Didn’t she dress provocatively on purpose to “test the waters”? Apparently she got exactly what she intended on getting. Laid.

Based on this part of her testimony, it proves that she didn’t want him to get in trouble. She was actually PROTECTING the man that supposedly “raped” her.

So here’s what we got so far:

1. She dressed provocatively to attract the older men at her parent’s party.

2. She did nothing to prevent the incident.

3. She did nothing to alert the others at the party.

4. She didn’t protest ANY of the actions during the “incident”

5. She made absolutely sure her parents and everyone else didn’t know what was going on.

She even testifies that she preferred the older man to her boyfriend; which she so quickly cheated on.

She also CONTINUED to wear provocative clothing, perhaps to lure yet another fly into her web of deceit.

Again, she proves that she was diligently trying to protect her “rapist”, her confederate…her LOVER.

So in conclusion, this “rape” wasn’t a rape at all but an incident that was CREATED by a horny teenager looking to generate some attention for herself. And when the sex wasn’t enough, she turned it into a soap opera of destruction that nearly tore her whole family apart and almost besmirched a man who was nothing more than a puppet in her game of deception.

And yet again, this man, this victim of a seductive, fornicating teenager apologized. Showing nothing but compassion for her, even after all the trouble she caused for not only his family but also hers.

Judge for yourself Lazy’s stupidity. That he didn’t get that it was RAPE and not some ‘seductive, fornicating teenager’. It’s obvious he doesn’t get complex thought or else he’d have gotten the point by now that Geimer is no victim and he’s barking up the wrong tree. But that’s our Lazy.


According to Geimer, the event can “All go away…” Her words. She also claims she’s ‘so over it’. She has also gone almost over backwards to make sure the courts don’t punish him further for that night, even so far as to sign an affidavit with the court in January 2009 to ask that all charges against Polanski be dropped and it all be done to ‘save her any further personal harm’. What harm, I ask?

A victim of rape simply doesn’t forgive and forget and move on. It is a permanent imprint on your soul. So deep is it, it does affect everything you do for the rest of your life. Certainly, it isn’t a memory 24/7, but it does colourize who you become and the motions you make as you go through life. I know it has me. Samantha Geimer went so far as to publically forgive Polanski in 1997. In 2003, she wrote an op-ed piece for the LA Times in which she said:

“But I believe that Mr. Polanski and his film should be honoured according to the quality of the work. What he does for a living and how good he is at it have nothing to do with me or what he did to me. I don’t think it would be fair to take past events into consideration. I think that the academy members should vote for the movies they feel deserve it. Not for people they feel are popular.”

My rapist was an interior designer. For me to write an almost glowing letter of praise for his work or what he did, would be against my very nature. He hurt me. He taunted me. He raped me. No way could I ever think of writing an article for a local magazine praising his work or what he did. I certainly wouldn’t ask his peers to celebrate him with an award. It’s obcene in a way. I know what was done to me that night and forgiveness and praise is not what I would give to my rapist if I could. And some say that for Geimer to forgive Polanski means she’s a strong person, an honest person. What kind of person truly if their claims of rape are true, wants total exoneration for the brutality of what was supposedly done to her that afternoon? I know I don’t think of Christmas the way I did. I likely would change if I had children, but until that happens if ever, my feelings won’t change. And that Geimer has three children, sons, who she’s told about what happened that afternoon. How do you look at them knowing you’re telling them one thing, then doing something else to be ‘so over it’? I don’t know. I guess I’m not that forgiving.

The other reason I wrote all this is because looking back at the Zenovich documentary, the one thing it never did was explain about the medical or scientific tests done on Geimer at the time. Geimer had been taken to Parkland Hospital to be examined in light of her ‘traumatic’ rape. As is with all rape victims, swabs were taken of her anal and vaginal areas for proof of sperm or other fluids. Anyone who watches “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” on any given week, knows this is important for any evidence in any rape whether the victim survived or not. According to the book “Polanski: The Filmmaker as Voyeur” by Barbara Leaming, the tests done on Geimer came back negative. No tearing or ripping of the anal cavity or of the peritoneum was found. No blood nor semen were found and the slides were all negative. No evidence of saliva was found. According to Geimer’s account in her Grand Jury testimony, Polanski entered her from behind, or as she said, entered her ‘butt’. She then stated that he performed ‘Cuddliness’ on her. Yet no trace of saliva as found.
All there is against Polanski is a pair of panties with what looked to be sperm, but another thing the Zenovich documentary doesn’t answer is if that sperm was tested. Blood typing and sub-typing was available back then. So a source could be found and linked to Polanski in some way as to have actual proof a rape occurred, but there is none. Today it would be easy to take a sample from those panties and get an actual DNA signature from them to identify Polanski once and for all. And if that DNA doesn’t belong to Polanski, what then?

It was known at the time that Geimer had had relations with other males. Their ages is somewhat debateable, but there was prior sexual history with other males. So where are the convictions for them? Where is the prosecution of Geimer’s mother Suzanne for neglect or allowing Geimer to run around having sex with other males? Where is the indignation from Geimer herself, for her mother’s ill attention? I know I have issues with my mom and my relationship with her is strained, yet there was Suzanne Gailey happily smiling and attending the premiere of “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired” on the red carpet in New York, rubbing shoulders with Dustin Hoffman, and others they’d both hoped to rub shoulders with back in the day.

The final question I have is this: If Geimer doesn’t truly feel she was harmed by Polanski, then why even bother continuing with this persecution? As a rape victim, I am incensed by the amount of shit that is being hurled at Polanski after his arrest. Like I stated in part one of this commentary, where have all these Johnny-Come-Latelies come from? What real stake do they have in the continued Polanski bashing? And after he’s cleared or pardoned, how does this maligned man get back a semblance of honour or respect?

As a victim of rape myself, one would think I’d hate Polanski. But I don’t. Why? I don’t think it was rape. I know rape. I know it was consensual. How? Read part three….