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……

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.”

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…….

ASTOUNSING

Some people’s children should never, ever, be allowed on a computer!

Over on the infamous IMDB page for Roman Polanski, someone it appears, has much too much time on their hands. This person whose name is Lazarusryu, has undertaken this extraordinary task of analyzing my rape as I reported in this post: POLANSKI: NO HARD FEELINGS PT 2. Apparently, according to this analysis, I was not a rape victim, merely a confused, nymphet wanting to have sex with an older man who I apparently, led to do this to me with my feminine wyles. If only I had that kind of power, I’d have had every single man I’d ever dreamed of having. According to this poor unfortunate Lazarusryu, I dressed provocatively and lured ‘Mick’ (a psuedonym) into my lair and forced him to have sex with me to satiate my lusts and perversions. Problem with that kind of thinking: It’s not true and I have never ever called what happened to me anything else but what it was: RAPE! Samantha Geimer, however, believes she was never harmed, never hurt, and doesn’t call what happened to her as rape. She acts as if it were just a mere walk in the park rather than what should have been one of the most traumatic moments of her then, very young life. For me, my experience was traumatic and left me with sense of violation that lasted for years after that pre-Christmas party of 1977. And my relationship with my family is not as ‘chumy chumy’ as apparently Samantha Geimer’s is with her mother. Apparently also according to Lazy, as I’ve come to call him, does not know the difference between truth and fiction…so I will now attempt to correct his method of thinking.

According to the aforementioned Polanski IMDB message board, the lynchpin in the ‘rape’ argument has something to do with Dr. Larson’s Grand Jury testimony (see page Polanski Pages Larson 107) that there can be no damage from a penis inserting into a rectum considering Geimer testified to having been raped twice by Polanski ‘from behind’. I’ll submit this as proof that it is impossible to enter an anus, one that had not previously been penetrated, without at least some injury. There is a reason why homosexual sex is done with copious lubrication because without it, there is a greater chance of injury in the form of tears, fistulas, and bleeding from those expanding tissues. Now time for a little Biology 101: The muscle contractions that are used to push out feces is there for a reason. These muscles are not supposed to be used to insert, rather to push out. Without a libricated condom or lubrication more than spit on a hand or vaginal secretions, it is impossible to any kind of anal sex without allowing for some distension in the oraface, however, when Larson conducted his examination of Geimer he found no tearing, bruising, tissue distension, hematomas or anything consistent with a double penetration. This was exactly the problem faced by the prosecutor in the McMartin Preschool case in which William Buckey, his mother Peggy McMartin Buckey and others faced over 500 charges in total for crimes stemming from what was called Satanic Sexual Abuse. The children in this case had told tales of Satanic rituals involving the killing of small animals and burials on the property, and any number of invasions. Most of what was told by these children were fanciful of knives and scissors being inserted into their ‘heinies’ and ‘peepees’. What was wrong with that picture was that if such instruments were inserted, there would have certainly been damage of some kind found. None was found and none would be found since the events never happened. It was also found that in preparing these children for testimony the Los Angeles Prosecutor’s Office as well as the Los Angeles Police Department relied on the Children’s Institute International to coax testimony from the children using prodding and persuasion in order to up the ante in terms of the level of abuse alleged. What resulted were techniques used to get the children to make false allegations against the McMartin defendants. Why is this pertinent to the Polanski case? In one of her interviews, Samantha Geimer has admitted to having been coached in terms of her Grand Jury Testimony. Like McMartin, what level of prodding could be associated with her testimony. How much of it was she told to embellish? This coaching she admitted to in the Marina Zenovich documentary ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED & DESIRED. So how much can we rely on in terms of her veracity?

Simply, if a jury were to be charged by the judge, he would have to advise them that if they found any part of a witness’s testimony to be in any way lacking or bad, then they are admonished to render all of it bad or tainted, therefore, dismissive in terms of the veracity of the witness. In Geimer’s case, not only one or two portions of her testimony are problematic, but all of it is. What is also troubling is that in Geimer’s account of having had sexual intercourse twice with two other people, that the Grand Jury wasn’t asking why at least one of the others weren’t indicted as well. Certianly the articles of indicment were against Polanski himself, but the Grand Jury is also impanelled to make suggestions for further investigation on behalf of the prosecutor’s office. That the Grand Jury did not implore Roger Gunson to further his investigation into two more avenues including Geimer’s boyfriend Steve Kronblet as well as the motivations of Susan Gailey in allowing Samantha to go off with not only Polanski, but photographer Sean Kinney in December 1976 is indeed problematic. I’ve been told by at least three to four other people on the IMDB Message Board for Sharon Tate that Roman Polanski committed a crime. If Polanski committed a crime, then didn’t Kronblet? If their standard is to indict Polanski completely for his alleged crimes, then why isn’t Kronblet similarly guilty? My guess is it has something do with a little sniggly thing Americans are known for, and that is their “US against THEM” mentality. No one of them can commit a crime, it’s only those disgusting Europeans and others we think are weird. And to them Polanski is weird and they find it weird that Polanski would want to have sex with a young woman said by Larson to be an “adult female”, yet Kronblet is not guilty and is even dismissed altogether due to the all too real aspect of “US against THEM”. They’d protect their own sooner than admit that there is one standard for others not THEM and another totally for US. That translates into something called xenophobia. Should this be anything new? Not really. Just disappointing. Disappointing in the way that they seem to think that Polanski is some sort of gnarled ogre under a bridge who unless stopped, will come out from under that bridge and assault their young children in the night a la Rumplestilskin.

I’ve been told by Lazy that I cannot converse with anyone in a discussion wihtout ‘trashing’ Geimer. No, I don’t have to ‘trash’ her, she’s done that all by herself with her consistent inconsistencies. You can read all of them here, Anatomy of Lies. The proclivity is to excuse her since she is, after all, the victim. It would be nice if she considered herself a victim. She doesn’t. She doesn’t even call or class what happened to her as rape. Depending on her interview or the day of the week she changes details. Those friends I have trusted to tell my story to, all of them can attest to the fact I have never altered one moment or detail of what happened to me. Yet Geimer seems to leave out things or add things depending on the need for attention. This makes me skeptical of her since as noted above, if I don’t believe one part of her story, I cannot and will not accept any portion of her story or ‘tale’. While I do believe that sex did take place, it wasn’t of the sort that recommended al this handwriging on behalf of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s offiice nor all the abuse hurled at Polanski on these many message boards and comments in blogs. And the other thing ones like Lazy and others cannot even accept is that perhaps there was another motive to Geimer and her mother’s penchant to want this case to “Go Away.” And that is ….

Perjury is essentially telling a lie while under oath. In the court of law, the statute of limitations is ten years from the date of the perjury. Techinically, Geimer is out of the woods as far as being charged so she has no jeopardy to her or her mother if they come out and tell the truth. In fact in this Oprahized world, she’d be lauded as a heroine for having the guts to come forward and tell her story of why she did what she did. However, there is a caveat to that perjury charge. If there is a conspiracy attached to that perjury, then there is a continuation of the perjury and the person can be charged on that aspect. So for those like Lazy who cannot grasp higher concepts. If Geimer lied and it is proven she and her mother conspired to ‘get’ Polanski, then both of them can be charged under conspiracy to lie. Ergo, she gets her arse finally screwed in a way that there would be proof Larson would finally be able to testify to.

So just for you Lazy, I wrote this blog to tell you in short words, hopefully, what the issues in this case are and the ones you like to ignore. And I also love the repeated times I asked you to refute you sent me emails or commented on my blog here to unhide my rape experience to “allow everyone to see what you went through….” Yeah, like I was born yesterday. All comments here are now moderated. For anyone who comments on this post I will allow it through only IF it pertains to discussing this in a rational manner. I will no longer accept abuse and certainly as a rape victim, I will not allow my experience to be used as some sort of ponographic fantasy to concoct things from your own pubertal mind to think you have superiority. I lost one element of my life that night that I swore I’d never lose again. And that thing was power. I have called what happened to me that night rape. I’ve not couched it with anything else due to the necessity to keep up appearances to the contrary. Lazy also uses my admission about my having had an affair with a 51 year-old married man when I was 14 as another ‘notch’ in his demented post that I am somehow not a rape victim due to my aforementioned feminine mystique. Well Lazy fails to grasp the reasons I admitted that, and that was that there seems to be this notion that underaged young women do not have the legal ability to consent to sex with older men. I submit, they can and do. Rape at thirteen has nothing whatsoever to do with reclaiming that part of myself with a man of my choice to what was taken from me the year before. At least I do not hide behind tales of promiscuity and pregnancy to amp up my claims of being ‘hurt’ or ‘wounded’. I own my reclamation. And that’s what I did. I reclaimed my life after the incident six months after my rape. I had to. Unlike Geimer who constantly changes her story and her victimhood depending on her level of publicity.

She is not a person to warrant sympathy or empathy. And what is particularly bothersome is Polanski’s current statement of saying Geimer is a victim of his as well as that of the press. Why it bothers me is that I feel he’s capitulated to the political correctness of the age. The Hugh Grant moment of going on The Leno Show to admit he had sex in a car with a prostitute to seek some sort of cathartic forgiveness. I don’t get that and if I have any anger toward Polanski it’s that he is giving into that notion he needs to seek some absolution in this manner. To me he got it when the extradiction warrant was denied. I had hoped that irreverence he showed when he finally accepted his LIfteime Achivement award from teh Zurich film festival in 2010 would be the final statement on that ‘unfortunate’ period of his life. I had hoped that was the Roman Polanski that would be with us until the end of his days. I don’t want a contrite or begging Roman Polanski. I want the one who has that “Fuck you” attitude toward those who want to continue to clamour for his death at the hands of Hitler’s war machine. I want the Roman Polanski who has survived at all costs just to piss those rabid Sharon Tate fans off who think he’s beneath their contempt. And who are those rabid Sharon Tate fans? The ones who think that Roman abused Sharon in such a fashion that it rendered her completely incapable to chose him as her worthy consort. Ah the dashing Jay Sebring, her Knight errant of that night in August 1969. The one who took himself out of the fight early on all because he had to act the part of a hero. Now that statement should by no means intimate I don’t care for Jay or what happened to him that night. On the contrary. I have deep empathy for Sebring and for what happened that night, I just don’t have any consideration for all those rabid Sharon fans who think that it’s perfectly okay to shit on Polanski and his sufferings in a dismissive fashion. Hero worship is a a bitch. Do I hero worshp Polanski? Certainly not.

My level of who I chose to spend my time with in terms of watching their films or listening to their music is based on whether I like their politics, mode of thought and who they are. I am a fellow Leo like Polanski and to a certain degree, I see a lot of myself in him…in his struggle for perfection in his art. Am I so enamoured of him I fail to see his flaws? No. Not at all. i know he’s a fuck up. But I like that about a person. I don’t like ‘perfect’ people. I like people who are always struggling to find that better person, and I find that in Polanski. For anyone who cannot find any level of compassion in their hearts for him or his tragedies just shows how limited they are as human beings. And that they cannot see the obvious flaws in Geimer’s assertions and not have any questions about her or her mother’s roles in this 33 year travesty is just as the title says, Astonunsing!

MAKING THE GRADE

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

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

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

STEVE COOLEY: WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?

DA opposes Polanski’s request for sealed testimony

1 hour, 52 minutes ago
By The Associated Press

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

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

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

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

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

Original Article

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

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

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

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

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

HISTORY IS A LIE AGREED UPON …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ROMAN POLANSKI: AMERICA’S MOST WANTED & DESPISED PT1

romanpThere’s a scene from a Stephen Sommers film called Van Helsing where a crowd of pitchfork weilding, torch carring villagers are stampeding toward a windmill where a deformed, and mangled creature is carrying his deceased maker. The creature climbs the stairs to the top of the windmill where in the distance, the throng comes ever nearer. As the crowd bears down on the windmill, we can hear screams and shouts of menace as they advance closer. The creature begs to be left alone to be with his master. But instead of empathy or pity, the blood-thirsty crown set fire to the fragile wooden structure sealing the creature’s fate along with that of hs maker. And as the creature wails his plaintive cry, “Why?” He falls to an unknown fate as the conflagration engulfs the two of them.

What does the previous paragraph have to do with anything?

Plenty.

The recent arrest of film director Roman Polanski in Switzerland has led to a similar mob-like behaviour of a group of very vocal, but uninformed pseudo-indignant protesters who believe the director of such films as Rosemary’s Baby, The Ninth Gate, and the award winning The Panist should be tarred, feathered, and any other number of horrible things for the 1977 rape of a 13-year-old in which Polanski, then 44. pled guilty to one count of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. What remains mind-boggling is that none of these people have dared acquaint themselves with the facts of the case. This leaves this blogger with a serious case of whiplash. The ‘girl’ in this case is Samantha Geimer (nee Gailey) who is now married for a second time with three boys and living in Hawaii.

There are two schools of thought in all of this: one believes Polanski ‘got away with it’ when he fled final sentencing in 1978; the other are those who’ve either been with this case (as has the author if this post) and others who have had their minds changed after the airing of an HBO documentary on the case. Roman Polanski: Wanted & Desired was directed by Marina Zenovich. Zenovich became interested in the case after seeing Geimer on The Larry King show on CNN in 2003 when there was discussion over whether Polanski would be nominated for an Oscar for his work in The Pianist. Zenovich watched and saw Geimer and her lawyer, Lawrence Silver, state that the day Roman Polanski fled, was a sad day in the Americal Judicial System. She was perplexed by that statement, and set out to investigate the truth of the case.

Securing interviews with the main participants in the case, Zenovich began to uncover a gross litany of judicial misconduct committed by the judge assigned to the case, who also renegged on the plea deal accepted by Polanski. However, no one wants to acquaint themselves with the actual facts of the case. Instead, they want to say that Polanski got away with it, undoing a ‘child’ so totally, he is somehow to be put in the same league as a Dahmer, Gacey, or even a Manson. Defenders of the ‘official story’ argue that Geimer was somehow this Little Red Riding Hood led down the garden path by the wolf, Polanski. The reportage of Polanski’s arrest has made this story grow and facilitate those willing to accept the lies, repeat over and over again with an almost sycophantic monotone of another of Sommer’s films. The Zombie scene in The Mummy where Imhotep has an entire city of Cairo under his spell chanting, “Im-ho-tep” in an almost comic fashion. It’s the press I blame for not availing themselves of the facts of the case to air to their public. All they do is concentrate on the ‘rape’ and age of the ‘victim’ to stir the moral outrage. These agencies have an obligation to supply as much background material on their stories to give a fuller, rounder version of the story. Not stick to ‘talking points’ as a means to deliver their news. And again, there is the notion that Polanski ‘brought this on himself’.

And this isn’t the first time this has happened to Polanski.

What’s ironic here is that Polanski had enjoyed a love affair going with the media. A darling due his quick rise during the 1960s for his films Knife in the Water, Cul-de-sac, The Fearless Vampire Killers and Rosemary’s Baby, Polanski and his wife moved in a world where praise was heaped and fed in hefty sums. There was nothing Polanski didn’t do that drew the affection of the press who sought to take photographs of him and hsi beautiful wife, Sharon Tate, arriving at airports, at film festivals, and at premieres. He was ‘their’ new prize. That was until the day of August 9, 1969 when Polanski’s home at 10050 Cielo Drive became the place of a multiple murder including Sharon, pregnant and due to give birth that month with Polanski’s baby, Jay Sebring, internationally known hairstylist to the stars, Voytek Frykowski, a friend of Polanski’s, Abigail Folger, heiress to the Folger Coffee fortune, and Steven Parent, an 18 year-old college student visiting the caretaker. What began after that, was a system of ‘blaming the victims’ for their lifestyle. Something Polanski excoriated the press for at a news conference shortly after his return to the States from London where he ws prepping a film. From that time on, he called the press up on the carpet for their printing of erroneous and salacious stories involving Sharon and their guests in the months prior to the murders. After the murderers were caught in late October, members of the so-called Manson Family, Roman left the United States sooner than face more lurid details involving his beloved wife and their friends. He’d had it with the press.

For the next seven years, Polanski made four more films, Chinatown, MacBeth, The Tenant and What?. The first enjoying a return for Polanski to the kind of attention his earlier pre-Tate murder had enjoyed. When in 1977 word came over the wires that Polanski had been arrested for rape, the media throng descended. What became of that, is historic…

…end of part one