HISTORY IS A LIE AGREED UPON …

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 thesmokinggun.com 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?