What Do Roman Polanski & Sam Sheppard Have In Common? EX PARTE

So who you ask is EX PARTE. According to Law.com, ex parte is defined as such:

ex parte

(ex par-tay, but popularly, ex party) adj. Latin meaning “for one party,” referring to motions, hearings or orders granted on the request of and for the benefit of one party only. This is an exception to the basic rule of court procedure that both parties must be present at any argument before a judge, and to the otherwise strict rule that an attorney may not notify a judge without previously notifying the opposition. Ex parte matters are usually temporary orders (like a restraining order or temporary custody) pending a formal hearing or an emergency request for a continuance. Most jurisdictions require at least a diligent attempt to contact the other party’s lawyer of the time and place of any ex parte hearing.

However, when ex parte is heard outside of the lawyers of a defendant by say a judge having a conversation about a case, they must refrain from having said ex parte communications as it violates the rights of the one on trial. Particularly when it comes to outsiders of any case where there is not a vested interest in such case by that outside party. In the case of Roman Polanski is was the ex parte communications Judge Laurence J. Rittenband had with at least two or three different people when it came to presiding over Polanski’s case. Those people were Deputy District Attorney David Wells, Santa Monica Evening Outlook court reporter Richard Brenneman, and at least one person at his Hillcrest Country Club where he told this person, “I’m going to throw the book at that Polocko.” In all cases this is most certainly illegal. There is no fudging about it, no matter how much people want to think what Rittenband did was not pressing to the Polanski Case. It of course was.

The ex parte principle was used in the case of murder suspect Sam Sheppard who was convicted of the murder of his wife, Marilyn who was raped and bludgeoned to death in 1954. Journalist Dorothy Kilgallan in her article for The New York Journal-American, wrote about the judge in Sheppard’s case that he had an ex parte communication with her at The Overseas Press Club. Judge Edward J. Blythin in a discussion stated to Judge Blythin, “Why are you here?” in relation to the case that had a whole lot of salacious things like sex, drugs, murder…. Judge Blythin stated, “I don’t know why you’re here, he’s guilty as hell.” Dorothy kept the information quiet for nine years until the judge died then took it to Sheppard’s attorny F. Lee Bailey who used the information in his appeal. It was the main reason why the Supreme Court overturned Sheppard’s conviction releasing Sheppard. Later in 1998 DNA testing proved that Sheppard did not in fact kill his wife. The DNA held that it might have belonged to Richard Eberling, a family friend. None of Sheppard’s DNA was shown to have been on Marilyn’s body. Evidence in swabs and smears from Marilyn’s body showed it tested positive for semen belonging to Eberling. Due to the results of the DNA testing the court posthumously exonerated Dr. Sheppard in the murder of his wife.

To those who believe that what Judge Rittenband did was not wrong, look to Ohio’s ruling in Sheppard. If one judge is guilty of it, it does indeed mean another is too. Rittenband’s disgusting behaviour both in and out of the court room is suspect and is illegal. This is why it is imperative that Polanski get another hearing, or the higher appellate court’s ruling for sentencing him in absentia is the correct thing to do. Can we expect California to do what is right? Not likely. They haven’t so far. At no point has that court ever ruled fairly for Polanski. It’s always ruled for it’s own self-interests. This is the reason too why former DA Roger Gunson’s transcript must be unsealed. His statement given under oath is a clear record of Rittenband’s conduct. It is relevant to the current proceedings in which Polanski’s new attorney Harland Braun is seeking to have Gunson’s testimony unsealed. All it takes is for a fair ruling by a fair judge to have that happen. I would also love to have those panties tested again. This time with the new advances in DNA testing we might get a true return on who that stain belonged to. If I were to go over and under of the likelihood of it belonging to Polanski, I’d have to say there’s a clear ZERO percent chance it does belong to Polanski. The next step would be to find out who it did belong to and if those panties were indeed the ones Samantha wore that afternoon. There is still a severe chain-of-custody issue surrounding those panties in that Det. Phillip Vannatter did not go with Samantha when she retrieved them from the laundry room at her home. And again there is the forensic findings the stain belonged to a man who was sterile. If I were to take an over or under assessment of who the stain belonged to, I’d give a 100% chance it belonged to Susan Gailey’s boyfriend, Bob. But then that would take someone with the guts to want to actually test them. If it is proven the stain doesn’t belong to Polanski, then I’d say someone has some explaining.

Now you’ve met ex parte. I hope you’re now more educated on why it is illegal and that there is indeed precedent.

40 Years Ago Today ….. And Here We Sit

It began with a phone call from a friend, a photo assignment for Vogues Hommes to photograph various young women for the magazine. What resulted was a forty-year smear campaign against Roman Polanski that has not abated. Today is the anniversary of that ill-fated meeting between Polanski and Samantha Geimer, the young woman at the heart of this pursuit for Polanski’s blood. There is the notion that it was “all Polanski’s fault” for not stopping when Geimer kept saying she said, “No”, but with her chronic memory lapses as to what actually happened, and her dogged campaign to get Polanski cleared of the charges, it’s still a little difficult to take her seriously. Given how many trees have been killed to write copy defaming Roman Polanski, and the amount of byts and kilobyts to continue the smear, one has to wonder when and if the press will finally step up and answer to their part in all of this. When you consider the way they’ve sat back on the charges from Jane Doe 43 who leveled charges of child rape at Donald Trump in the days before the 2016 American Election, I don’t see any time soon where they will actually apologize to Roman Polanski for all the disgusting things they’ve said about him. Not to mention all the talk-show pundits who have continued the smearing solely for ratings. But then when you do look at the ones who have stepped up to the plate, including The View’s Whoopie Goldberg who said it wasn’t “rape rape” and the amount of shit thrown at her for even considering it wasn’t real rape, it’s a wonder anyone would be willing to step up…. but they must. Considering the way they’ve stepped up to defend themselves against the “fake news” rhetoric spewing from The White House of late, they now know what it’s like to be on the shit end of the stick. It would be nice if they returned the favour and began their contrition for calling Roman Polanski every single name in the book, those things that three psychiatrists shot down when they interviewed Polanski at Chino State Prison. So forty-years later we’re still sitting here waiting for the day when Roman Polanski can finally jump on a plane and go anywhere he pleases without fear of being rearrested as he was in Switzerland in 2009. Now some would say, “Well it was his fault, if he didn’t rape that child….” The point is, no rape occurred and nothing was harmed, certainly not a child. Polanski committed at best a morals crime, but hardly enough to have warranted the shit storm Judge Laurence Rittenband conjured when he reneged twice on the plea deal that should have ended this case forty-years ago.

Who is to blame for this travesty of justice? Some would point to Polanski whose moral turpitude brought all of this on. However, we still have to look back on the incidents that preceded these events. Those ones that happened back in August of 1969, and beyond. Those events of the cold blooded murder of Sharon Tate, Roman’s eight-and-a-half-month pregnant wife at the hands of the Manson clan eight years before. Upon his return to the United States after the bodies of Sharon, Jay Sebring, Voytek Frykowski and Abigail Folger were found stabbed, beaten and shot in the house and on the grounds of the Cielo Drive rented ranch house, Roman called into question the motives and the words of the press who wrote reams of copy on how the victims brought it on themselves. In his press conference, Polanski shamed them for stating what they did about Sharon, and calling the Cielo Drive home an orgy house. He invited them to come and see, see the blood, the baby books, the baby clothes, the newly painted nursery…. Everything that flew in the face of what they were saying about these people and why they were murdered. I mean baby books and baby clothes, bassinet and bottle warmers sure weren’t signs of Satanic rituals, Sex Magick rites, and drug parties. That certainly didn’t show that these four victims were bringing it on through sitting around a pool, taking photos, listening to music, going out for a late dinner at El Coyote now did it? Yet by connection what happened to Roman in 1977 had a direct correlation back to that press conference. They were shamed, therefore they would shame back, making up all kinds of scenarios to class Polanski as this evil dwarf who is out to rape any young girl or baby. Better lock up your girls world, Roman Polanski is out there….

There is still no desire on any of the media to go and look at the actual evidence in this case, you know, the lack of toxicology showing level of intoxication of the girl who’d been taking drugs since she was eight, the lack of fluids where in her oh so damning Grand Jury hearing where she claimed he performed “cuddliness” on her against her will, and the dry humping double sodomy that produces no evidence of assault. That Grand Jury hearing that The Smoking Gun and others like to point out to show what kind of deviant Polanski is. What I’d like to know is, where in that hearing does she say he raped her? She never uses the word. Ever. Never has, with the exception of the statutory part of the offense, though Polanski was charged with the lesser offense of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse With a Minor that is included in 261.5, not the statutory rape part of the charge in 261. Yet he is sill called a “child rapist”. More character assassination. Seems though a woman can lie about rape, but a guy who admits to “grabbing women’s pussies” becomes President of the United States, even though there was an underage rape case being files from Jane Doe 43 who wanted her day in court against Donald J. Trump, but Samantha Geimer has been screaming from the treetops to end this case. You know, the one that never was. But hey, whats one rape for another non rape, right? Just so long as one can chew gratuitously on the naughty bits.

Samantha Geimer has made a cottage industry for herself in the last twenty years since she “came out” as Polanski’s “victim”. She’s been able to carry on a career, despite the fact that at whatever point along that curve she either doesn’t want to be known as that, or does. I can’t keep it straight sometimes. She likes to receive emails and letters from him. Nice that. I didn’t want anything from my rapist, only his very painful death either at his own hand, or fate. I never cared which. Only that I read his obit one day. Samantha Geimer knows that when Polanski goes to the Great Beyond, she’ll be mentioned in his obit. The glorious director’s film career reduced to being a notch on Geimer’s bedpost. And again the press will not call her out on her lies. No, they’d rather have the salacious bits to chew on. The child rape, the drugging, the sodomy, the pedophilia. All those nice sound bites that make a great newscast gain ratings. Yet nothing is farther from the truth.

I’m still angry at Marina Zenovich, director and producer of the 2008 documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted & Desired and Roman Polanski: Odd Man Out that she never once brought up the lack of evidence in either of her documentaries. Was she so enamoured of getting Geimer’s participation she felt to include the lack of forensics would make her seem less valid? Ask that of Making a Murderer filmmakers Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi who took ten years to bring the wrongful convictions of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey to the world-wide audience, exposing the lack of evidence in their cases. They brought to the world the conclusive proof that neither Dassey or Avery could have killed Teresa Halbach because like Polanski, evidence did not add up. So the world has banded together to celebrate Dassey and Avery as the innocents they are, yet Roman Polanski still remains a convicted rapist, hence the inequities of truth. Unlike the masses of Youtube videos and websites dedicated to Dassey and Avery, there’s only a handful of us who have dared to take on the truth of the case against Roman Polanski and to bring those lies out of the shadows to the light. Where there’s no blood to speak of in the rape and murder of Teresa Halbach, there is equally no blood, semen, saliva and whatnot in the assault on Samantha Geimer. But there is no one like Kathleen Zellner who is willing to take on the case, crack open that evidence and reveal the truth.

So forty-years after the events of March 10, 1977 we’re still grappling with the State of California V. Roman Raimund Polanski and the decision from one starfucking judge who refused to accept the plea agreement that could have ended this back in February 1978. The time where Roman Polanski didn’t have to make that fateful decision to leave the State of California, and the United States to flee to his home country of France where he must watch which countries he goes to lest they have an extradition treaty with the United States. There’s the rub there, those uniformed asshats who say he “is in exile in France”…. Um, France is his place of birth. Can’t be “in exile” in the country where you were born. If so, then I guess I’m in “exile” in Canada. Some would say that “if he’d just come back home and serve his time….” Point is I’m beyond understanding their rank stupidity. The United States was never his home. It stopped being that as of October 1969 when Polanski left to for Italy after the capture of the Manson family for the murders of Sharon and the rest. As for serving his time, according to Deputy District Attorney Roger Gunson, the original prosecutor in the case and a man without guile or an angle in the case, Roman Polanski served his time. The 42 days at Chino State Prison for Men that was to be all the sentence he was to receive, that Judge Laurence Rittenband agreed to … TWICE. What more can the State of California let alone the United States of America want from Roman Polanski? Certainly it couldn’t be the perp walk replete with the leg irons and chains on an eighty-three year old film director? A man who has two children and a wife and friends who when they stand up for the man they know, they’re frequently called “pedophiles” or “pedo supporters”, not quite unlike those of us who support Polanski and the inequities of the legal system that did not protect him in the same way it protected Geimer. You know, those other six or eight men she admitted to having had sex with. Those ones who were not charged under the same legal system that keeps pursuing Polanski to this day. Ah, the insanity of it all.

On this day, the anniversary of the fast fuck heard around the world, I’d like to say this: Roman Polanski is by and large an innocent man. As innocent as those other men who’d had sex with Geimer. Todd, the two Steves, the father of her eldest son, Bob, the boyfriend of her mother. That’s five. Five men who got away with it where Polanski was held to a different standard. The only thing Roman Polanski was guilty of in my eyes, was having sex with the wrong person. Someone who couldn’t keep her mouth shut and just have that knowledge that she’d had sex with a well-known director. Now no one need say that another girl likely would have been more traumatized. The point here is that had this been another “girl”, Roman Polanski wouldn’t have had any interest. Samantha Geimer was unlike any other “girl” back then. She was ready and willing and on more than one occasion, able. She loved having sex, she told us that in her book. Loved exploring her own body and allowing for her own independence to the point of not listening to either parent when it came to that autonomy. But then I’d kill to have a conversation with Sean Kinney, the photographer who shot that very infamous “schoolgirl with the books looking slyly over her shoulder” the previous December. Where is he and what would he have to say about the Gailey/Geimer tag team? What stories would he be able to tell if he could? I’d kill to find him and mine his noodle. But he’s not been seen or heard from, and is only known from the credit on the photo that had been printed in the many periodicals lo these many forty years. Where was the interview with him Ms Zenovich? Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi did their due diligence in their docu-series, why couldn’t you have done yours to end this cloud of disgusting name-calling that hangs over Roman Polanski and his reputation.

Forty years later and Roman Polanski is no closer to being free of this albatross because as of February 24, 2017 a day when his case was to be heard by a new judge, it has again been put on indefinite hold. Will it be another forty years before Roman Polanski is finally cleared? I hope not. Forty years as it has been is more than enough, and as an online friend of mine keeps saying, I hope Judge Laurence Rittenband is in hell, burning for all eternity for what he did to Roman Polanski. And what he did was renege TWICE on a plea bargain that would have ended this back in 1977. And before anyone says that it’s well within a judge’s right to refuse a plea deal, you’re right in certain circumstances. Those cases where a plea deal in which a serial murderer Dennis Rader also known as the BTK (Bind Torture Kill) received life in prison in lieu of the death penalty for telling all he knew about his crimes and the whereabouts of all of his victims. In that case the Judge Greg Walker agreed that the information Rader had was more important than imposing the death penalty for the murder of ten human beings. The same thing was done in the case of the Canadian “Ken and Barbie Killers” where Karla Homolka, wife of Paul Bernardo, was given a sweetheart deal of twelve years for the murders of teens Kristen French, Leslie Mahaffey and her own sister Tammy Homolka in exchange for her testimony against Bernardo. A deal that included the codicil that if it was found out she participated in the crimes beyond what she testified to, she might face further penalty. When VHS tapes turned up showing that Homolka had indeed taken part in the crimes and did so of her own accord, the deal was re-examined by the Provincial and Governmental authorities as to whether Homolka violated the terms of that deal. It was decided that while she did violate it, to have rescinded that plea deal, would have undone the case against Bernardo, but also undone most of the plea deals struck by prosecutors all over Canada. So when those people say that Judge Rittenband had the right to impose more of a sentence on Polanski than the 42 days or even the 48 days often bandied about when discussing this case, they clearly don’t understand the application of the plea deal as a ways and means of seeking justice in a court-of-law. While the judge does have that discretion, that discretion is often times not employed when seeking to close cases, and it is in that vein that what Rittenband did was not only wrong, but criminal in and of itself. The plea agreement is not an arbitrary thing, it is part of the bulwark of the judicial system. Polanski wasn’t treated special. In fact, he was treated abysmally by the same justice system that jerked over the seven accused in the McMartin Pre-School case.

What’s left now? Nothing. Until this new judge sees fit to allow Polanski’s lawyers to unseal Roger Gunson’s 2010 deposition and accept his word that Roman Polanski has served all the sentence that was agreed to by Rittenband, we’re in a holding pattern. Roman Polanski is in a holding pattern…. At 83-years-of-age, and his want to be able to visit his daughter Morgane where she is attending school in London, and if the reports are true that Polanski wishes to come back to the United States to go to Sharon Tate’s grave before he dies, then I have little hope that he will be able to do this. That is the real travesty here.

And here we are forty years later……

Follow Up On An Earlier Post

Well it looks like the issue I tackled in my post When Is One Extradition Not Like The Others? has finally born fruit. It seems that a former CIA agent by the name of Sabrina De Sousa will be handed over to the Italian authorities to face a four-year prison sentence for the rendition of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nas off of a Milan street for the purpose of torture. Finally the United States will have to pay some kind of punishment for having broken the law in another country. Seems fitting I think. Look, it’s not that I’m full of blood lust, but it would be nice if the United States didn’t feel like it was some special snowflake, and that the laws that it demands to be followed by others are frequently flouted by them… and often. In this whole issue of Roman Polanski’s extradition has been more than a simple case of forcing someone to pay for their crime, but paying more for an offense that he’d already been punished for. In fact Polanski has been the target of a concerted campaign to make sure he suffers, truly suffers for something that no other man including the other six to eight men who’d slept with Samantha Geimer ever paid for, including the 44 other men who’d been charged with one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor the whole previous year before Roman Polanski haplessly met Samantha Jane Gailey. More below:

Ex-CIA Agent to Be Extradited to Italy Over Kidnapping

Former CIA agent Sabrina De Sousa will be extradited to Italy to serve out a four-year prison sentence for her alleged involvement in a U.S. program that kidnapped terror suspects for interrogation, according to reports. The 61-year-old was convicted in the case, along with 25 other Americans. The group was accused of abducting Osama Moustafa Hassan Nas off a Milan street on Feb. 17, 2003. De Sousa has consistently denied involvement in the kidnapping since her October 2015 arrest in Lisbon on a European warrant. Terror suspects were routinely kidnapped, interrogated, and tortured under the U.S. rendition program in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. The strategy was part of President George W. Bush’s anti-terrorism plan, but President Barack Obama ended the program after he took office. De Sousa has lost several appeals against her extradition, and claims she is unable to properly defend herself without providing classified information about the U.S. government. “We are deeply disappointed in her conviction and sentence,” said acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner. “This is a matter that U.S. officials have been following closely. We have asked our European counterparts what their next steps may be, but we are not in a position to detail those discussions.”


When Is One Extradition Not Like The Others?

When one is an American border guard who shoots to death a fifteen-year-old Mexican youth, and the other is a French-born film Director whose one-night-stand has gone on for forty years.

U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, U.S., October 3, 2016. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Today the Supreme Court of the United States was debating the case of an American border guard who shot to death a 15-year-old Mexican who was caught trying to get back to Mexico. Mexican authorities have sought the extradition of the border guard to Mexico to try him for murder. American authorities are stating they will not produce him and the case before the Supreme Court is an appeal from the boy’s parents seeking justice for the death of their son. The United States State Department has refused to hand the guard over, citing “conditions in Mexican prisons” as their main reason for the refusal. This is in stark contrast to their constant pursuit of Roman Polanski and their bulldozing through Polish and Swiss courts to try to get Polanski back to the United States. They seem to want their cake, but not have to eat it. What hubris for demanding Polanski’s extradition based off of an illegal bench warrant from Judge Rittenband, to that of a murdered Mexican teenager’s parents seeking justice for their loss. However, the extradition request for Polanski is based on nothing. It is only because former district attorney Steve Cooley felt his spleen was displaced because of the Marina Zenovich documentary that rightfully, called foul on Judge Rittenband’s behaviour. This is the exact same issue Italy faced when it called for the extradition of four CIA agents for the wrongful rendition of one of its citizens on suspicion of terrorism. But then it’s never America that has to cough up the goods, only other countries where America feels it has had its rights deprived. Only in this case with Polanski, he already served his time and no further time was required of him.

“Making a Murderer” & “Wanted and Desired”

I was asked on the now defunct IMDB Polanski board by Numby if I would feel the same for a ditch digger as I do for Roman Polanski. When I said to Numby that yes, I would. He went on to call me a few expletives, then proceeded to call me a liar. I told him he was wrong and went on to mention my feelings regarding the two men in the now well-publicized Netflix docu-series MAKING A MURDERER, the story of the wrongful imprisonment for eighteen years of Steven Avery for the rape of Penny Beernsten, then his re-arrest by Calument and Manitowoc investigators he was suing for wrongful imprisonment. Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey are now serving life sentences for the rape and murder of victim Teresa Halbach. The reason I mention them is that Avery was part-owner of an auto wrecking yard, and Dassey was a sixteen-year-old special needs young man. What makes me so hateful of Numby for his belief I wouldn’t care for either Avery or Dassey or both is that the level of my compassion does not only lie with famous Polish movie directors. To me Avery and Dassey are easily in the same boat as Roman Polanski. And I’ll proceed to tell you why.

A little background information for you. Back in July 1985 a young woman by the name of Penny Beernsten was raped and left for dead by an assailant she identified as Steven Avery, a local auto wrecking yard owner who had had no less than a few run-ins with the authorties. By 1985 Avery had been on the radar with the authorities for various offenses, but nothing that denoted an escalation of sexually-based crime. Usually in the case of rape or sexual assault there is a pattern of escalation in terms of what the perpetrator begins to do to become a rapist. In the case of Canadian murderer Paul Bernardo, he began with sexual assault by taking his victims from behind, then forcing them down onto the ground than anally raping them. In total there were about a dozen victims of what came to be known as the Scarborough Rapist. A few years later Bernardo and his then wife, Karla Homolka, raped three school girls including her own sister, Tammy Homolka, and two others Kristin French and Leslie Mahaffey. Before that Bernardo and Homolka drugged three women to rape them while they were unconscious, recording them on tape while they did. In this case there was that escalation of raping while the victim was aware of what he was doing, then drugging them to rape them while they were unconscious as they did with Tammy, but then kidnapping both Kristin and Lesley that ended in murder, with the latter dismembered and encased in concrete. However, with Avery there was no inciting incident, no original rape that would begin the escalation.

Avery was convicted and sent to prison for 32 years for rape and attempted murder. And the story should have ended there…. only it didn’t.

Shortly after Steven was sent to prison for the Penny Beernsten assault, his appellate lawyers applied for two appeals that went no where. It looked like Avery was going to be doing the full length of his prison sentence. However, in 1995 after Avery had spent ten years behind bars a guard at the prison where Avery was being held received a call from a guard in another jurisdiction regarding a serial rapist by the name of Gregory Allen. Allen was serving time for another rape, but he had also confessed to another rape he said happened in Manitowoc County. The call was dismissed because according to Manitowoc, they had their rapist in prison serving a sentence. The problem with this was Avery had more than a dozen people who had provided an alibi for him, also there was no real evidence against him for the Beernsten rape other than a single blonde hair that according to tests, was consistent with that of Penny Beernsten. But nothing else connected Avery to the rape. No fluids, no sperm, no DNA, no nothing, yet he was serving 32 years for the crime.

Flash forward to 2003 Steven Avery filed another appeal based on the new science of DNA testing that had by that time, exonerated several men who had been serving time in prison for rapes they did not commit. Avery hoped that this was the one thing that would eventually clear him. His appeal was granted and that same year, a vial of Steven Avery’s blood was taken to be tested with the fluids that were collected from Penny Beernsten’s body during the rape kit exam back in 1985. That blood was tested along with the sperm and it was shown that Avery was not the contributor of the sample. It was then found out about the call that was made back in 1995 regarding Gregory Allen to the prison where Avery was serving his time. Allen’s DNA was collected and it was a perfect match to the fluids left on Penny’s body. Steven Avery was immediately released from prison in 2003 having served 18 years of his life behind bars. As a result Avery filed a wrongful conviction suit against both Calumet and Manitowoc Counties.

Two years later in October 2005 a woman by the name of Teresa Halbach disappeared having been at Avery’s wrecking yard on an assignment for Auto Trader Magazine. After an investigation police and sheriffs of Calumet and Manitowoc counties arrested Steven Avery for Halbach’s rape and murder based on a confession obtained from his nephew, Brendan Dassey. During the trial Avery settled his wrongful conviction case with Wisconsin for a paltry sum of $400,000.00, down from the 38 million he’d originally filed for. The money Avery needed to pay his lawyers, Dean Strang and Jerry Buting. After Avery was convicted Manitowoc prosecutor Ken Kratz convicted Brendan Dassey based on his confession to investigators Mark Weigert and Tom Fassbender. You can view Brendan’s “confession” below.

Part One:

Part Two:

Like in the Polanski case there’s all kinds of stink involved with Avery and Dassey’s convictions. First of all is the fact that hte ones who conducted the investigation were the same people Steven Avery had filed his wrongful conviction civil suit against. Second was what Brendan Dassey confessed to did not match the lack of evidence. Namely, in the “confession” Brendan is guided by Fassbender and Weigert to tell what he and Avery had done to Teresa Halbach, including slitting her throat and shooting her in the head after they’d raped her in Avery’s bedroom. Brendan had said Avery had chained Halbach to the bed, and as she fought with him, they raped her. The problem is there were no marks on the perfect headboard where Brendan had said they’d raped her. Next there was no blood anywhere in the bedroom where Brendan said Avery had slit her throat. Next Brendan told that they’d moved Halbach out to the garage and subsequently shot her in the head. He explained there was a lot of blood and that he and Avery had cleaned it all up. Problem with that is even using Luminol,a compound that is sprayed on a surface then an ultraviolet light is used to illuminate the residue of cleaned up blood, there was no blood found. No residue. According to the authorities Avery and Dassey had burned the sheets and coverlet in a burn barrel outside in the yard after they’d burned Halbach’s body to small bone fragments. The problem with that was why didn’t they burn the mattress that would have had blood seepage into the fillers and fabrics? Next is the issue of shooting Halbach in the garage. When authorities searched the garage they found one bullet fragment, but no blood. Nothing. The garage had a lot of car parts and two cars, plus a heavy layer of dust that had settled. According to the confession Brendan gave Weigert and Fassbender he said they’d cleaned that up too. Problem there is that the dust was not disturbed. The police even went to the extent of jackhammering the flooring up to see if anything had seeped into some cracks in the pad, but they found nothing. No blood. There was a small amount of blood found in Teresa Halbach’s Toyota RAV-4 SVU, however, there wasn’t enough to say that her body had been in there, as according to Dassey they’d used her vehicle to move her body from the trailer to the burn pit. But the small amount of blood found in the RAV-4 may have come from the vial of blood used to exonerate Avery in the Beernsten rape two years previous.

This is like Det. Phillip Vannatter carrying a vial of Oj Simpson’s blood from it’s collection at Parker Center to the secondary crime scene at his home at 365 North Rockingham and the small amount of blood found on Simpson’s socks, and the presence of EDTA (Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) a preservative used in blood collection kits. Did I mention Phillip Vannatter?

As can clearly be seen in the two videos I provided, you can see that Brendan Dassey is slow. He has a low IQ and has been diagnosed with a cognitive disability and with the need to please. People with that kind of a disability will be very easily led to say whatever they’re told to say because they want to please. Steven Avery isn’t any better. He clearly has a low IQ marked at about 70 to Dassey’s 60. They’re functional, however, not devious or able to commit such a terrible crime without making one mistake. And that is the crux of their cases. While there were possessions of Halbach’s found in the burn pit including her cell phone and her camera, there wasn’t enough to say she was murdered at the scrapyard.

So the reason for my post is to dispel Numby’s notion that I only care about “rich” Polish/French film directors, that I’m somehow a groupie or something of Polanski’s. To me both Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey are no different than Roman Polanski. I feel both Dassey and Avery were railroaded in an attempt to get rid of Avery’s wrongful conviction suit that would have bankrupted Manitowoc and even the State of Wisconsin. As for Polanski the jockeying that has occurred in his case clearly shows that no one in the Criminal Courts Division of California wants to admit to wrongdoing in terms of the amount of misconduct with Judge Rittenband and former DA David Wells, not to mention that of Steven Cooley, Jackie Lacey, Judge Peter Espinoza, Judge Larry Fidler, and Phillip Vannatter. Did I mention him before?

My compassion does go out to Dassey and Avery as much as it does Polanski because I hate bullies. I hate inequality and I hate it when authority uses it’s power to abuse and demean the rule of law. So Numby if you’re reading this, you’re an idiot, no worse than that, you’re a fucking idiot. You think you can say what you did without me shoving it in your face? You demeaned me and others with your disgusting talk of calling us “pedophiles” and “pedo-lovers” and called me a rape survivor a cunt and a twat. Well you are nothing more than a small boy who is nothing more than a bully. Those of us who support Roman Polanski support others in the same vein as Polanski. We do not support unfair tribunals where judges and prosecutors abuse their power. Where misconduct is treated like “no big deal” and where those who adjudicate it are not held to the same standard. Those like Rittenband, Wells, Kratz, Cooley, Fassbender, Weigert, who believe they are allowed to do what they did to Roman Polanski, to Steven Avery, to Brendan Dassey without equal punishment….and you, you piece of shit are not allowed to diminish us with your accusations and your foul mouthed vitriol.

So what is the lesson in this: Read and learn the actual facts before you shoot of your mouth. And you’re not allowed to inject things into the conversation that are not relevant. But then you Trump supporters don’t believe in facts. And that will be your downfall.

“Roman Polanski: Wanted & Desired” Watch

I found on Youtube an upload of the documentary ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED AND DESIRED that begs a re-watch. Why? There are certain message board posters who believe that Judge Laurence J. Rittenband would have gone easy on Roman. That is not the truth. At the 25:14 minute mark, Assistant District Attorney Steve Barshop has this to say about Rittenband:

“Rittenband was known as a hammer.That means that he was a tough judge and a tough sentencer. If you didn’t make a deal, and you didn’t have the deal in place when you went in there, you were in trouble.”

So to Veritas-Lux-Mea I have this to say to you, any belief that Rittenband was only going to sentence Polanski to the remaining 48 days left on the psychiatric diagnostic, is very naive my friend. That and his admission to his country club friend of his intention to “Throw the book at that Pollocko” proves more than adequately his intention to indeed, throw that book at Polanski no matter the sentencing guidelines at the time, and the result of the written reports from the court-appointed psychiatrists and the probation officer. So please save us the hyperbole that you think you know more than those involved or than those of us who have investigated this case since 1977.

And to Numby if you put the slider ahead to about 31:00 minutes, you’ll see Polanski with his attorney Douglas Dalton who is giving a press conference where Dalton is asking this:

The facts indicate that before the… – the alleged act in this case, this girl had engaged in sexual activity. That’s contained in reports that we now have. We want to know about it. We want to know who was involved, when. We want to know why these other people were not prosecuted, and this is a thing we want to fully develop.

Concrete proof of other men Samantha Geimer had slept with, yet they were not charged. That is called selective prosecution. Then later on Anthea Sylbert asked the question of why didn’t Susan Gailey keep Samantha out of that circle. These are valid questions when you consider all the shit that has been thrown at Polanski these last four decades. I love what the French journalist says about how Polanski had made a name of Natassja Kinski, so it was expected that he would do the same for Geimer. Then Geimer has the audacity to say to, “give my mom a break.” Yeah, right Sammy. I’ve documented my rape in another post and I’ve also stated about the ambivalence I had for my mother from that point on to the point that when she died in May 2015, I was upset, but not overwrought because to me, our relationship fractured that Winter of 1977. I felt at that point I could no longer trust her. That Geimer can be so blase about Susan Gailey’s conduct, speaks volumes. In fact, it speaks more than volumes, it’s blaring.

IMDB Board Closure & A Safe Haven For Polanski Supporters

Going onto Roman Polanski’s IMDB board page I found that they are planning to close all message boards as of the middle of February. While I find this to be something that not a lot of people are going to like, I know for us Roman Polanski supporters it’ll be a godsend. No more whacky nutters like Lazy, Numby or others to believe they know what happened and no more to call those of us who support Polanski any number of disgusting names and epithets all because we don’t comply with their belief on what Polanski did to what they think he did. So I’ve made a post over there to invite all Roman’s supporters over here to this blog to carry on the discussion. To any and all of Roman’s ardent supporters from there, I welcome you with open arms. To anyone who posted there who did not play nice…. You’re on notice. Piss me or anyone else off here and you’re done. I won’t put up with your bullshit. The other cool thing here is that I can call you what I want to and you can’t report me because here I AM KING. Piss me off and you’ll learn fast. Oh, and don’t bother trying to post spam messages. There are filters for that kind of stuff and I won’t see it. So satisfying to be in control. Ahhhhhh, life is good.

Calling Out A Numbnut

I really debated whether I’d make this post but considering the rampant malignancy that is a certain other IMDB poster, I thought it was time. Yeah another poster on that board who is in serious need for a time out. This poster’s name is Justanicknamed. Why name him? Simple, because he is quite plainly one of the most disgusting and deplorable people I’ve ever come across. And that word is more than apropos due to his rampant love of none other than President Pussy Grabber and known White Supremacist, Donald J. Trump. This person voted for this piece of excrement. So I guess in the end, that makes Numby, as we call him on the board, just as much a piece of excrement. Truth hurts when it hits you in the face. I guess that in the end Numby like so many others are in that “basket of deplorables” that Hillary Clinton mentioned of Trump’s supporters/voters. Numby is one of those types that no matter what you tell him he won’t believe it because those voices in his head are telling him something else, doesn’t matter if there is proof/facts on your side. He’s like Trump who invents stuff so that he can appear to have the upper hand. Problem is, he just comes off looking like a stupid petulant dope who like Jon Snow, knows nothing. Numby posts often as many times as a couple dozen times in a day to the Polanski board, and in each posting he will haul off and call anyone any number of disgusting and dehumanizing names all because he has no off switch or ethical compass. Anyone is open for his ridicule no matter how many times one tries to be civil with him. And believe me I tried to be. With anyone on that board I try to be civil. I try to be as informative as I can, providing as much information as I can to allow he and others to acquit themselves of the facts. However, this person blatantly refuses to accept anything you give him. He chooses to ignore the facts and instead brings up things that were not a part of the case but then hammers those home, even to the extent of making stuff up.

So why this post? To show how clearly deluded these people are. In this new age where facts are somehow wrong and or not facts, and of fake news, it’s no wonder Numby and his ilk have trouble with facts. They believe that it’s perfectly fine to use disgusting epithets to describe you, even urging others to do the same. Numby claims to be a supporter of rape victims. When I pointed out that I was a victim of rape, he then went on to say he was happy I was raped and that I likely enjoyed it. This is the kind of crap that is acceptable these days. Now under Trump they are emboldened by his behaviour. Numby even said something like he hoped I had blood dripping from my vagina, that’s how virulent his strain is. And again I say that this is the “new normal” where Trumpers (might as well call them what they are and in counter to the birthers and their nonsense toward President Barack Obama) feel as if they have the right to have this crap spew out of their pie holes and no one will call them out on what they’ve said or that what they’ve said is not the truth. One such thing Numby refuses to understand is that the photos Roman Polanski took of Samantha Geimer on that afternoon in March 1977, were not part of the original six felony counts he faced after being arrested. Those original six counts were:

  • rape by use of drugs
  • perversion
  • sodomy
  • lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14
  • furnishing a controlled substance to a minor

Does anyone see a charge on the photos? Interestingly all those were reduced to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, a misdemeanor down from six felony counts. At no point was he ever charged with child pornography for having taken the photos. It should be noted that Samantha Geimer has possession of those photos. Some of them appeared in her book, including one on the cover taken by Polanski. So those photos must not have been so traumatic that she can look at them and have them in her book. It’s shocking that she wants to look at them, but then we all know she’s not really disturbed by them. They were taken by one of the most celebrated of film directors. Someone she could never have expected to ever cross paths. But those photos were not part of the original charges no matter how many times Numby wants to say it does not make it so. But Numby likes to have his fiction to cling to.

I suspect this type of revisionisism will get progressively worse as the next four years go on. Trumpers will get more and more emboldened by believing that Trump “has their backs” even though if the going gets tough, he’ll abandon them just as readily as he has everyone else who he’s become pissed off with. He’s already doing that now.

Numby has had plenty of time to bone up on the facts of the Polanski case. This author has provided more than enough links on it to sink the Titanic a few times over. Those links include some in the sidebar. Novalis Lore, Jean Malkovsky, my own work here…. Those all have the truth on the case including Jean’s in-depth analysis of Samantha Geimer’s chronic mind lapses as to what she’s said before and now about the events of that afternoon. Then there is Jean’s analysis of Geimer’s book, that travesty of the truth where she again uses her oft-told lies and half-truths to extol her own “trauma” but then spews out her own sexual prowess and how she was basically a slut. Even the pleading of her own father didn’t change her. But she never really puts that blame on Polanski. Oh she says that her life changed after him, but she never has any concrete proof it was any different afterwards than it was before. She still exercised her autonomy in terms of her sleeping around. She chronicles how her mother would drop her off at the back door of her school, where she would then exit the front door with her good friend, catching the bus to go back to the friend’s house do drugs and sleep with guys. So what was new here? She was doing the exact same thing before Polanski. So nothing Polanski did had any impact on her whatsoever, with the exception that she was more famous. And even that she has issues with. Isn’t that what she wanted? Didn’t she want to become famous? Wasn’t that what her book was for? To give her that podium to “share her story”? The most disgusting thing about her is how she says she has called up rape victims to offer support, and this doesn’t in the least cause anyone to gasp? And this is the thing Numby and his ilk refuse to believe, that this is what Geimer wanted all a long. If you look at her when she appears on the various interview shows she does, and or magazine articles, she poses with that same smirk she always has. The one that tells she knows she has Roman Polanski as a notch in her bedpost. And that same smirk I want to just punch out of her. But Numby and his ilk believe her, believes the lies being told about Polanski by the red press, and often times these people make stuff up to make him more a monster because of those voices in their heads. And this I suspect is the result. Like his blind devotion to Trump, I believe that Numby truly believes what he’s saying, despite the fact that nothing that comes out of his mouth is the truth. Just another keyboard warrior without a sword to wield or a cause to champion, because face it, there is no damsel in distress here. Geimer has more or less told them they’re not needed in the discussion, but then like Trump, she does an about-face then wants them to believe her when it supposedly counts.

But then it doesn’t really count because she’s openly campaigned for Polanski’s full exoneration. She’s written two letters of congratulations to the Swiss and Polish justices who found no cause to extradite Polanski back to the United States. Here in this letter I’m reproducing under Fair Use, she writes to the current District Attorney Jackie Lacy who is the acolyte of Steve Cooley:

January 24, 2014

RE: The State of California vs Roman Polanski & Roman Raymond Polanski vs The Superior Court of Los Angeles

District Attorney Lacey:

Allow me to introduce myself. I am Samantha Geimer, the minor victim involved in the Roman Polanski sexual assault case. I write you to request that your office commence an official investigation into the alleged misconduct occurring in 1977 and 1978 during proceedings in The State of California vs Roman Polanski. As the minor victim in this case any misconduct which may have occurred impacts me directly. More importantly the fundamental fairness and justice in our criminal justice system is paramount above the individual concerns of the defendant and I or the State of California’s interest in prosecuting a case.

In Section VIII. Conclusion, of the Dec. 21, 2009, Opinion of the Second Appellate Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, it is stated that the Court remains deeply concerned that these allegations of misconduct have not been addressed. Further, “Polanski’s allegations urgently require full exploration and then, if indicated, curative action for the abuses alleged here. Time continues to pass, and the delay in addressing this matter has already removed one participant from the ranks of the available witnesses for an evidentiary hearing on the judicial and prosecutorial misdeeds that have been alleged here. The passage of more time before this case’s final resolution will further hamper the search for the truth and the delivery of any appropriate relief, and it will also prolong the agony that the lack of finality in this matter continues to cause Samantha Geimer. We all exhort all participants in this extended drama to place the integrity of the criminal justice system above the desire to punish any one individual, whether for his offense or his flight.”

It has been four years since this opinion was issued. Additional allegations that have been made and facts that have been revealed since the original proceedings have raised new questions and concerns about the treatment of this case in the years since 1977. These include the recent statements and behavior of David Wells, recent revelations about Judge Fidler’s handing of the case (*please see link below) and Steven Cooley’s hostile attitude towards myself and the California Victims’ Bill of Rights.

I understand that your office has pressing and more current matters on which to commit its resources, but if not now, when? The answer will be never, as eventually the original participants in the matter will not be available to testify. I have been the lonely voice of a woman and a victim in a choir of the voices of powerful men and their individual agendas. I ask only that you find the truth, that you demonstrate the integrity of the Los Angeles District Attorneys’ Office and seek that justice not be delayed or denied any further.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Samantha Geimer

No where does she state she was harmed by Polanski. No where does she state about her pain and anguish at what Polanski “did to her”. She cites, at her discretion, her “victimhood” but never once admits to her own culpability in this travesty of justice. But then that would mean she’d have to admit to having lied under oath, and then admit that it was all a honey trap set up by her mother and her to “reel in the big one”. She says that she wants truth, but she refuses to admit hers. But there again she is not acting like a victim. If she were a victim, she wouldn’t be writing letters in support of Polanski, rather ones that ask for his head on a platter. I know for me had I been able to prosecute my rapist, I would have without asking for leniency. I’d be asking for his head on a platter because that’s what real rape victims do. We don’t slobber all over ourselves, whetted with excitement to be in the news yet again with a whale of a tale. We don’t want our rapists to be able to walk away scott free for having raped us. We want justice, and that is the one thing that Samantha Geimer is not asking for. Some will say, “Oh, it’s because she’s forgiven him….” Forgiven what? What did he do to her other than give her that one thing she wanted: Fame and a career. And that career is as an actress who plays her part well. Didn’t she say in her tome the two of them were, “playing our parts”? If anyone can’t read into that what actually happened then I feel for you. I truly do. And for those like Numby who can’t seem to grasp that Polanski is not their whipping boy. Numby even claimed to have exercised great restraint when a 15 year-old girl allegedly threw herself at him. He acts like Geimer in a way, that he’s the best gift to ever have existed. But then both Numby and Geimer have huge egos that need to be stroked daily…if not hourly. And like Numby’s new idol, President Pussy Grabber himself, he is completely too stupid to realize that he’s not god’s gift to anyone or anything…including himself.

So Numby if you read this…. Glad you did, but not for the reasons you think.

Making A Mockery of Real Rape Victims

elizabethjaycee I’m really not sure where to start with this post. Having just spent the past couple of hours reading through Jean Malkovsy’s excellent analysis of The Girl: Geimer’s “Memoir” over at his excellent site Roman Polanski: The Ballad of Contradictions, a link that can be found to the right in the blogroll, I have come to the conclusion that Geimer has either slipped into some sort of alternative timeline or she’s completely lost her mind. Why? From the excerpts I’ve read (I refuse to buy the book since it might just damage my mental stability) over at Jean’s site, I can absolutely say she’s certifiable. As are her two co-writers, her lawyer Lawrence Silver, and ghost writer (and I’m not talking Polanski’s film) Judith Newman. See it seems all three have engaged in some kind of alternative history writing here. I read this analysis aloud to my significant other and adopted a rather patronizing voice when I read those portions that came from Geimer’s narrative. Why? Because I don’t find her the least bit credible. When I think of books where rape was discussed as a reality and with far more credibility than Geimer, I think of My Story by Elizabeth Smart and A Stolen Life by Jaycee Lee Dugard, both ladies who know what it is like to be raped and be in fear and danger for their lives. Having read these two books from cover to cover I can say I’m utterly amazed at the candor and strength of both young ladies. Unlike Geimer who cannot seem to find it within herself to tell the truth in her book.

The story Samantha Geimer tells is unbelievable. Unbelievable in the way that it fails to tell the truth of what actually happened and that all known facts including the forensic evidence comport with Polanski’s version of the events. Geimer likes to whitewash both her conduct as well as her mother’s in terms of making it seem as though they were mere victims of Polanski’s machinations. What she does not or will not allow herself is to admit what was evident: She and her mother were and still are born liars. What is astonishing is she fails to note that the impetus behind the writing of this book is the fact that Polanski can not discuss the events of that March afternoon without breaking the terms of the civil suit. Fortunately he did get his side of the story out in his autobiography that again, comports with the evidence. Samantha Geimer and Susan Gailey are nothing short of opportunists who parlayed a one night stand into a 34 year career. Seems according to Geimer’s 18 year-old boyfriend, Steve Kronblet, Samantha likes to play the actress. This is something she excels at…being just like her dear old mom who allowed drugs around her at a very young age as well as allowing her to drink at a young age, then cried rape when it was convenient in light of a failed attempt to gain an agent from Polanski. So they became vindictive. For those who believe I’m being harsh, I say this…the contents of this book are shocking how much she contradicts herself from her past statements. Having seen most of her television interviews as well as read most of what she’s said in the press since she ‘came out’ as Polanski’s ‘victim’, this book contradicts everything else she’s said. Only now is she calling it rape, an attempt from her co-author Lawrence Silver to gain the upper hand in the eyes of those who don’t know her proclivity to lie. Up until this tome she’s called it “only sex.” Only rape in the way of the Statutory element of the crime. However, she now calls it rape to not only sully Roman Polanski’s name further, but to also engender a knee jerk response from those in the public who have no doubt also failed to comport themselves with the truth. For anyone wishing to read the truth of this incident and a complete analysis of Geimer’s lies, one can turn to Jean’s blog for the facts of the case.

Hey, why not read through the entire blog. It’s full of the actual evidence, has transcripts and the analysis done on Polanski by the prison psychiatrist as well as the probation report who in turn, put some of the blame on the permissiveness within the Gailey home as a reason why this event came to be. Please do not be fooled by the ‘explosive’ content in this book. It is neither the truth nor is it her story. It is her concocted story. A bunch of fake slight of hand to try to explain away why she and her mother were not charged with perjury. Her’s is not the truth. The truth lies within the better written Roman by Polanski where he tells the truth. Pick up that book then read through the evidence at the blog above and then come back and call Samantha Geimer and Susan Gailey what they are: Liars.

She calls herself a survivor. What hubris. She cannot begin to know what it is actually like to be a survivor. What happened that afternoon cannot even be called a crime. That she writes to rape victims is a travesty. She makes a mockery of actual rape. My only wish for her is she would take the money she won in the civil settlement from Polanski and go quietly into that good night because compared to the stories of Elizabeth Smart, Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Fritzl, Samantha Geimer’s is nothing but a need to continue that fifteen minutes of fame she and her mother began back in March 1977. All I can say to her is, get off the stage already! Enough is enough already. You’ve milked this story for everything you can, now just shut up and go! For someone who supposedly didn’t want to come forward or to have all this noteriety through it, she sure is in need of the fame. Why? Failed to become the actress she wanted. Polanski didn’t give her and her mother what they wanted and that was the entrance into the Natassja Kinski world of the starlet. Ever thought you weren’t worthy? It also surprises me when I see her posing for photos in such periodicals as People and such, she poses like a failed actress still believing she has a shot at some sort of stardom. Interesting that she uses Polanski’s photos within the book as well as on the cover. Technically it’s child pornography. These images should not have been seen due to the nature of their capturing. They are also part of a continuing litigation in terms of the ongoing criminal case against Polanski still snaking its way through the California Criminal Courts. Even that doesn’t stop her. Yet she feels perfectly fine in using those photos for her own financial gain. Another reason I despise her. Again it’s perfectly fine for her to exploit Polanski within the pages of this book, yet Polanski told the truth in his book and she and her mother sued him. But hey there Sammy, feel free to continue to exploit Polanski and your own idiocy. I won’t even post a photo of the book’s cover. That’s saying I give her some kind of relevancy alongside those books of Elizabeth Smart and Jaycee Lee Dugard. Both books are haunting in how they describe in detail the abuse and degradation they went through with their captors. k

And here is the other thing that just sticks in my craw about Geimer’s “tell all”, she claims she felt she wasn’t free to go! Yet Polanski drove her home! We are supposed to believe about Polanski that after having his way with her, he just drove this ‘poor girl’ home when she was bleeding and raped? Considering what I believe happened that afternoon at Jack Nicholson’s house and the aftermath in terms of her Grand Jury testimony regarding her actions afterward, she went home and sat in the product of a rape? She sat in her underwear with Polanski’s ejaculate, and in her words, “up the back,” this says something more about Geimer: She’s creative, yet not correct. There was no ejaculate “up the back” as she states. There were no fluids present where she says there should have been. There was only the stain in the gusset that has been tested to prove it came from a sterile man. I’d like to know if Boyfriend Bob was sterile. If wishes were horses, I’d love to have a whack at that stain. Obtain buccal swabs of Boyfriend Bob, Steve Kronblet and any other man she was having sex with including Polanski and have at an actual DNA analysis of whose stain that belonged to. If the answer is different than Polanski, then we need to turn our scorn on Geimer and Gailey for perpetrating a most egregious crime. Egregious in the amount of vitriol that has been levied at Polanski these many years since Geimer came into the collective consciousness. Turn that back on the Geimer/Gailey team and call them out for the lies they’ve told and continue to tell. Tell them they are not allowed to profit off of Polanski. Tell them they are perpetrators of the worst form of smut. Tell them to just shut up and leave the stage. Tell them they are not allowed to take the same stage as Elizabeth Smart or Jaycee Lee Dugard because what they endured for months, in Elizabeth’s case, and years, in Jaycee’s, and call themselves anything close to survivors. That word is reserved for those of us who actually want to see those to hurt us be punished for what they did. Not be all wishy-washy about when to call Polanski a victim or a perpetrator, because certainly the former applies.

In closing I’d like to put out a personal plea to Samantha Geimer. That is, stop it already! Stop trying to call yourself something you’re not. Stop believing you can even stand alongside those of us who want our victimizers imprisoned. We don’t want riches, we want actual cold hard justice. What you want is stardom. Well you got it. Time to go quietly into that good night. Time to pack it up and close the doors on that expensive piece of real estate in Hawaii and just be a quiet citizen because I know for a fact, when Roman Polanski passes into that great beyond, you’ll drag your sorry ass back into the limelight and comment on his passing. And for that I’ll renew my hatred of you. I know I’ll want to throw a shoe or the remote control at the television or ram my fist through the screen of my computer for how positively narcissistic you are to believe you deserve to stand on that stage once more. So do me a favour Sammy, just don’t. In all that holy, just don’t!