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.”

SOURCE: THE DAILY BEAST

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:


(Dalton)
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.

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!

WE NOW RESUME OUR REGULARLLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM

I’ve decided to return one post to the blog that I had previous removed due to perosnal reasons, however, it has been heaviliy edited. The post I’m talking about is the one where I recounted my rape in comparrison to what Samantha Geimer classes as ‘rape’. The post is this one: Polanski … No Hard Feelings. What and why I’ve done what I’ve done is includeed in the edited post. I’ve removed all portions dealing with my story and they will not return, so don’t ask to see them because they won’t be provided. I will not have my story used as some sort of purient, juvenile masturbatory pleasure for obvious idiots like Lazy who believe he can twist what I posted without being called up on his idiocy. He seems to think it’s perfectly okay to call into question what happened to me, however, no one can call into question Geimer’s obvious litany of lies. What she has said and when can be found here: Anatomy of Lies. If you can read through her obvious attempts to make herself look better in the media despite the fact she has no veracity and not believe she is a liar, then I don’t know what else can be submitted to make you realize she is lying. Unlike my story where I’ve always called it rape, she always calls it something else. No one wants to read through her lies. Most of the fanboys of hers on the IMDB Polanski board refuse to see her as anything else but this poor, poor, poor victim of this evil profligate dwarf.

So for the reasons I’ve already stated, my rape story will not return, instead, I’ve included Lazy’s attempt to rebut my story with some less than shoddy interpretation. I’ll let the reader judge. Now I know what some have said to me regarding my story, “Well there Samskara, you did make your story public, therefore, you can’t blame anyone for wanting to call your story into question.” Fine response, however, the problem with those who read what I posted is they fail to note the one thing I’ve continued to state throughout. And that thing is that I was RAPED. Not assaulted. Not fondled. Not molested. Certainly no consensual sex. I was RAPED. At no time have I been ambiguous as to what happened, certainly not as ambiguous as Samantha Geimer has been. If someone has decided to re-interpret what I posted for their own stupid aim, than it is the product of a sick pubertal mind. To anyone who would support someone who has done what Lazy did with my copyrighted material, then that says more about you than it should. Meaning, you don’t have the independent mind to read on your own. You need to be a part of a collective to make yourselves seem greater than you are. Ceratinly you have no scruples.

I know there will be someone out there who will say, “Well there Samskara, you did call into question Samantha Geimer’s story and have been very vociferous in regards to her story….” And I say, one should be. There has been a man’s life and freedom at stake here. My rapist’s freedom has never been at stake. And the scrutiny I’ve used in forcing a light onto Samantha Geimer’s story should be duly done. Why? If there is one man who is imprisoned for a false rape alegation, then it’s too many. No woman should use something like rape to get money or fame. This is why reports of false rape hurt those admissions of reap rape victims. It does nothing to the public discourse when real rape victims must fight to be heard above those who believe a Samantha Geimer or a Patricia Bowman. It makes it just that much harder to be heard when ones like Lazy spew their bile in an attempt to ‘discredit’ real stories of rape. That light I and others like Jean Malkovsky and Novalis Lore have shone on Geimer means one less real victim of rape will be denied a hearing. and hopefully one less man will have been accused. The notion that Lazy could chop up my story and add his own brand of stupid means that the inmates have taken over the asylum. There have been far too many who have misreported the Polanski case for reasons that cannot be gleaned. It can only be said this misreporting has been done to muddy the waters regarding real stories the press should be covering. But that turn had begun before Polanski was hauled in by some innocuous Swiss border guard.

What the press does is use the catch phrases. The ones that get them the ratings or readership to boost their profiles. As long as they can discuss Geimer being a ‘child’ despite the fact that the doctor who examined her at the hospital referred to her as an ADULT FEMALE or state that she was anally raped despite the fact that those charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence and the fact no proof of anal rape was found during her rapekit examination makes no nevermind. It’s the titillation factor that matters, not the truth. Obfuscation helps too. The ole bait and switch. Instead of talking about the real issues like the mortgage crisis and the reasons why the banks are getting richer off the backs of the poor, why not talk about a thirty-three-going-on-thirty-four year rape case where no mention is made of the lack of evidence against Polanski, or the fact that according to Roger Gunson the original prosecutor, Polanski served all the time that was required of him. No, let’s discuss ‘child rape’ and the ‘drugging’ and ‘boozing’ up of a poor helpless angel. This all despite the fact that Samantha Geimer appears to have no qualms about calling it what it was: Consensual Sex. Nope, the lies and the omission of key facts raises the indignation and the ire of the public so they can forget about the real issues like the obliteration of personal freedoms. A ‘lazy’ public is a fat one. And that is why I used the term to identify Lazarusryu because he like others are intellectually lazy to find out the facts for themselves. They refuse to use Google for what it’s for and find out the facts for themselves. If there is conflicting information, use your idiot gauge. Do what Novalis, Jean and Richard Brenneman have all done and acctually LOOK at what is being said and extrapolate from there. Seek us out, those of us who know this case back-to-front. Ask US the questions if you’re confused but don’t try to think you can state misinformation without facing our censure. Not only is it intellectually lazy but also cruel to Roman Polanski and real rape victims to continue to state untruths.

To you Lazy I’ll say this, did you think you could use intimidation to stop me from speaking the the truth? Sending me threatening personal messages at the IMDB board telling me to in effect “be good or else I’ll let it out of the bag your real identity” shows just what kind of a person you really are. You don’t play fair, you resort to ugliness and terrorist tactics to silence the facts. Here’s what Lazy sent me after calling me Prometheslut:

These are the kinds of things they say to you when you have the truth on your side. It’s ‘Bush’ league tactics like these they use to silence the truth. This is their kind of debate. Doesn’t matter if they cite truth or not, just so long as they get the last word. So I’ll submit that these people have no validity. But they are the voices heard when the discussion is had. The ones who resort to threats to ‘get their point across’. They are no different than a real rapist who’d use intimidation to silence a rape victim. The same sort of intimidation my rapist used agianst me in those months after his rape of me. But in the words of Marianne Pearl, widow of the late Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl, “I am not terrorized.” I am not threatened. I am empowered by such methods of idocy. Lazy claims I threatened him. At no point during our year plus discourse over the Polanski debacle have I ever threatened him. I did PM him and tell him to remove my real name from a post of his. Then he continued on with some nonsensical jabbering about me having given him the direct link to my Facebook page. He also claims he’s an online acquaintence of mine. I know I have never given anyone the direct URL of my Facebook page. Ever! So in that, he lies. He also claims that he didn’t threaten me. I’ve submitted the evidence. So in that, he lies. He admits he did call me a slut. How nice and grown up-py he is. So do I thank him for saying he stopped calling me a slut?

The problem with people such as Lazy is that he wants to have all the attention without having to read the facts. I’ve supmitted to him at least on a dozen occasions on the Polanski IMDB board the link to Jean’s “Anatomy of Lies” page, but he claims until I’m ready to debate with him without name-calling, he won’t read it. That is petulence pure and simple. If he did read it, he’d have to realize he’d been backing the wrong horse all along. But Lazy can’t do that. He can’t admit he was wrong or else his ground would rock beneath his feet, or at least below the keyboard on which he spews his brand of stupid. He’s proven time and time again he cannot debate without getting nasty. So my decision to pull the portion of that post that I recount my rape story is valid. What I went through that night and in the months, let alone years afterwards is not subject to someone’s fantasy. I am not a public person like Samantha Geimer who it seems, is not adverse to spreading her legs time and time again for the public. So in that she IS subject to scrutiny. So Lazy, instead of trying to get inside Geimer’s pants, why not educate yourself on her lies? Simple answer to that one: Then Lazy and others like him won’t have a boogy man on which to vent. They won’t have someone to focus on day after day after day with their mastubatory fumblings. Like the populace who has grown fat on the misinformation from the media, they just shut off their ears, close their eyes and open their mouths wide to gobble up the lunacy of a press who is not afraid to spread half-truths and the aforementioned misinformation and they are the very same kind of sycophant who would be fodder for a Manson who caused the brutal destruction of Polanski’s family and friends back in 1969. The very same sycophant who drank the Kool Aid at Jonestown. The very same sycophant who believe that 19 hijackers with box cutters brought down three buildings in Lower Manhattan. And the very same sycophants who believe The Patriot Act is necessary to keep ‘us’ safe from terrorism.

Ones like Lazy are dangerous in that they have no qualms about using intimidation to make their voices the last heard. So that is the reason I returned the post to my blog sans the parts Lazy so enjoyed mocking. Some might say that they’ve won with my taking out the portion of that post dealing with my rape and that if my story is valid, what do I care what people do with it? The point is, they have no right to do that. I’ve been totally honest and up-front about what happened to me and my reasons for totally rebuking Samantha Geimer’s torrid tale. These very same types like Lazy who would pick apart my story are the very same ones who think it’s perfectly fine to continue to call Roman Polanski any number of names and accuse him of any number of crimes including that of merely not being there when Hitler’s Nazis came for his mother and unborn sibling. It’s so good to see these people can keep all things in perspective. Not to forget they also blame him for the deaths of his wife, Sharon Tate, their unborn child and friends back in 1969. Accusing him of imaginary crimes is tantamount to an Orwellian future I refuse to bend to. So therefore I dedicate this post to all the clearer heads that prevail in this world. To you I say, “WE will not be terrorized.”

WHEN IS DELUSIONAL … WELL, DELUSIONAL?

A signature from a certain poster on the Polanski IMDB board:

How a Roman Polanski supporter debates:

“I order you to kill yourself, NOW!”

It appears that Lazy has lost it again. With this signature, he/she/it points out the totality of his/her/its stupidity. that is the thinking of someone who wants to control the message because it upsets their version of the ‘truth’…as they see it.

See, the problem with Lazy is that he/she/it seems to think that if you post something, it’s not the truth until he/she/it says it is. NO matter that there is documented proof to the contrary. Lazy seems to think that it’s perfectly okay to make stuff up as it suits and to do whatever it takes to make sure everyone else believes his/her/its word to the letter. See, this is what is called delusional. Lazy seems to think that stating and using direct statements from the participants in the Polanski debacle is tantamount to lying. It makes no never mind to this person that Roger Gunson as well as Samantha Geimer are solidly on Polanski’s side in this. Lazy seems to think that I’ve made up everything I’ve posted both over at the IMDB board for Polanski as well as here, even calling into question the story I posted on my own rape. It seems Lazy has also gone to calling me a slut, prostitute as well as a liar.

I’ve never made any bones about the nature of my sexuality. When I recounted my rape story, and like it or not there Lazy, I was raped, I told the truth. I told the truth about trying to be provocative that night, however, I at no time lured Mick (pseudonym) to me lair to entice him into a night or moment of sexual gratification. If going up to my room to prepare for bed once the guests that night left is considered to be ‘provocative’ in terms of clearing my bed off of the records I’d used that night to discjockey, then fine. I’m guilty. Burn me in oil, stone me or better yet, place me under a board and crush me under rocks. I suppose in Lazy’s eyes, I’m responsible for the witchery that permeated Salem in the 1600s, or The Plague that riddled medieval Europe during the Dark Ages.

See this is the reason Lazy fails to comprehend anything in his/her/its useless life, to state that we Polanski supporters believe in any way that we “Order you to kill yourself….” doesn’t understand the full breadth of the fact we know what happened to Polanski in his young life. We remember the fact he lost his mother when he was six to the Death Camps that took six million of his kind. We remember that Bula was five months pregnant with Polanski’s sibling when she was taken and mainlined straight to Auschwitz where she was put straight into the gas chamber and murdered without pity. We remember Polanski’s father was imprisoned at Bergan Belsen and kept from Polanski until the boy was twelve. We remember that Polanski was kept by gypsies until he was reunited with Rychard after the war ended and the Death Camps were liberated. To say in any way that we support any kind of death or suppression of free speech means he/she/it has no ground to stand on.

Lazy is just a spewer who likes to hear him/her/itself speak. Lazy likes to believe his/her/its own delusional thinking. It means he/she/it doesn’t have to do anything other than listen to the voices in his/her/its own head. When he/she/it refuses to read and understand what Gunson has told them, then it’s time to pack it in. This doesn’t mean copitulate. I will not capitulate on my stance on the Polanski Case. I know in my heart that what happened that afternoon at Jack Nicholson’s Mulholland Drive cul-de-sac was consensual sex. Samantha Geimer has in effect said it was. But for someone like Lazy who will not read and understand no matter how much information one provides, when he/she/it decides that whatever you post back to them it’s not the truth or as Lazy says, “And you’re taking the word of someone else, so what’s your point? Oh yeah, you don’t have one,” when you point out that Roger Gunson gave a sworn depositon to Polanski’s attorneys in Chad Hummel, Douglas and Bart Dalton regarding the matter of Polanski’s sentence which Gunson says he completed, then one has to assume that Lazy is either stubborn or a dolt. I believe the latter.

Now one might ask me, “Samskara, aren’t you just making it worse by calling Lazy ‘he/she/it'”. I say, “No!” Why? Simple. This person has not even shown he/she/it comprehends anything he/she/its been told. Lazy just sits there at his/her/its keyboard typing blindly because he/she/it believes what he/she/its saying. Truly. There’s no rhime or reason in what Lazy posts. There’s no understanding of what he/she/it is being told. When it all comes down to saying that quoting or posting facts about Roger Gunson and what he did to support Polanski in his extradition fight and this is not believed despite the fact that there is Google, Yahoo, and any other number of search engines available to their fingertips, then what else is there to say? So from here on end, I’ll be posting various comments here instead of to IMDB. I’ve allowed Lazy the opportunity to come over here to spread his/her/its own lunacy. I’m suspecting Lazy won’t. I really don’t think he/she/it would allow him/her/itself to be open to the more intelligent mass of the blogosphere. Those who do use the internet for more than a plaything. Those who do know this case efficently and those who support Mr. Polanski know the truth. We know what he has been through and what Samantha Geimer, herself, has said happened that afternoon. If one simply refuses to listen to or understand what has been told to them by the participants involved, then I’d say it’s little chance they’ll change. Lazy certainly has never shown any instance of understanding or wanting to understand what happened. He/she/it has also show little compassion for what I went through the night I was raped. Instead like a petulent child, he/she/it clings to a fantasy that I was some sort of hooker out to get laid. Which I was not. Rape is not something one talks about with the notion of a high five mentality. Which is how Samantha Geimer describes it. Rape is a violation. A violation I sustained and survived. It’s not something that leaves one when it happens. It’s something that stays with one for a lifetime. It colours ones outlook and makes all further decisions about life that much more acute. One doesn’t lie about rape. One doesn’t admit to and related their story like I did for brownie points. It’s a painful regurgitation. It’s like having that penis shoved into your mouth one more time and for Lazy to have done his/her/its revisionist view of what I wrote, should be ashamed.

Now I know what the common thinking is, “Samskara, why did you put your story out there if you didn’t want someone picking it apart?” Simply, I didn’t know there were sick fucks out there who’d take it upon themselves to decided what happened to me that night. Then want proof of it. Now where did I put that DeLorean with the Flux Capacitor? They’re like those passing motorists who like to roll down their windows and gawk at the accident or the seventy car pileup to see the blood and body parts. Lazy wants to see what I went through solely for his/her/its own purient thrills. I can just see Lazy sitting at his/her/its computer mastubating while they’re reading what I posted. And that’s the feeling I get. This person has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I tried to find some, but there is none. So I’ve decided that sooner than try to appeal to Lazy’s sense of right thinking, I’m going to stick solely to the content of his/her/its own posts and dissect them here for my readers to extrapolate and mock.

Fair game there Lazy.

THE MADNESS CONTINUES

Read this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, re-read the boldened portion…..

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

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

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

Now his response back to me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your revised/expanded bio:

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://samskara.org/journal/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the penalties for Unlawful Sexual Intercourse?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next discussion…….