Continued from Roman Polanski – He Said She Said They Said – An Op End Case Analysis Part Three, found HERE.
Here’s how public manipulation works. An English-speaking article on the San Sebastian film festival cited September 17th, The Ghost Writer, voted the best film of 2010 by the Federation of International Film Critics picking up the Fipresci Grand Prize: “Polanski himself was unable to come to Spain because of the sex abuse charges against him, media reported”, making it sound as if the festival [director/s] did not allow him to attend because of the ‘LA courts’ still wanting him on the ONE charge, NOT any ‘US authorities’ on ‘charges’ since he was released two months back now. Only proving that still too many didn’t get the idea that he had done his time for it in 1977/8, despite the fact that Polanski had said so in plenty interviews long before Zenovich’s eye-opening documentary made that clear, no one seems to have taken any notice of. It’s more to the fact that Polanski didn’t want to go there in case it was another trap to arrest him, despite having had a villa on Ibiza for many years since the late 80s where he stayed frequently with his wife Emmanuelle. And why do they keep saying ‘he returned to his ‘adopted’ France’? Lives in ‘exile’? HE IS FRENCH and lives in PARIS! Nothing ‘adopted’ about that. It’s nothing but corrosive tactics to twist the facts of this case even still. To most he’s nothing but a salacious news commodity that can be abused by sordid tabloid stories, next to personal poison pens sent to the editors by petty haters whipping them into more frenzied attacks, with Polanski unable to defend himself against such open slander since decades now. Ultimately, in the black and white world view of our history, any ‘celebrity’ is assigned immortality in either the pantheon of untouchable star or the dungeon of the tainted criminal. However, nothing in this world is black and white. Ever.
Now, September 26th, exactly a year after Polanski’s needless rearrest having caused him and his family so much more pointless distress, released from his electronic jailer since nearly eleven weeks, it almost cost him a fourth film never to be finished. Though I doubt the case will ever amicably be remedied, I wish him all the best in the future as the tough old bird he is and to make more acclaimed films. Speaking of which, it was announced that Polanski could secure first-rate actors for his much-anticipated adaptation of Yasmina Reza’s play God of Carnage: Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, along with Matt Dillon and Christoph Waltz who will play their husbands. Although the story was set in Brooklyn on Broadway, it’s a French play and filming will begin in Paris coming February for the duration of twelve weeks. The film is being co-produced by French producer SBS and Berlin’s Constantin Film. Pathe and UGC are both vying to be French distributor ever since Reza first disclosed she was adapting her much-appraised play with Polanski last summer. God of Carnage tells the story of two sets of parents who meet after their sons are involved in a schoolyard fight. The meeting goes disastrously wrong as each pair attacks the others’ parenting skills before turning on each other about problems in their own marriages as the evening spirals out of control and into a wicked battle between the sexes, and is a blistering look at societal dysfunction when the couples attempt to settle the playground conflict. Since this is only just now being made official, many have welcomed the three highly talented Academy Award winners, and Matt Dillon as ‘interesting’ choice. With such excellent all-round casting and Polanski’s magical directing touches and superb play, this should be a great film to look forward to.
While some have already voiced their usual ‘how can they work with this child rapist’ bullshit, it’s about time to get over this story which is older than some of these mindless detractors. Someone else going all dismissive of Ms Geimer, saying, ‘if she really forgave him and didn’t see the wrong in it, that just proves how mentally scarred she is,’ that’s not only contradictive since then she’d not ever ‘forgive’ him, but utterly ignoring her own autonomy as an adult and that what she says today should be respected they have no right to negate with their own dismissive ‘assumptions’. She’s not that teenager anymore who had to comply with adults, i.e., her mother/sister, the law/makers. She herself never said she was ‘scarred’ by Polanski but the public and corrupt law, and has lived a perfectly happy family life in oblivion on Hawaii. Here’s what someone else came up as a much more intelligent counter-résumé encompassing a side most people simply reject by imposing their own skewed interpretations. If we take a closer look at Ms Geimer’s own narrative of the experience as told to Larry King on his talk show in 2003 (many never even saw), we come away with a surprising perspective people hardly grasp. Rather than describing herself as an ‘innocent victim’ who was ‘forced’ into sex by a famous director, she appears to carve out an alternate identity for herself that is more empowering. This leaves us with significant questions, though (feminists will reject outright): how does Ms Geimer’s effort to represent herself as agential and sophisticated, and therefore less of a ‘victim’, complicate the positioning of this event as ‘rape’?
Apart from no evidence pointing to ‘rape’ (or sodomy), how does her use of elements of ‘romantic intoxication’, and ‘intoxicated seduction’ within a non-consensual sexual encounter make this unorthodox ‘rape narrative’ even more illegible and acceptable to the general public? And why does the press’ destructive re-narration of the events attempt to place Ms Geimer squarely in the category of ‘innocent victim’, even as she tries to achieve a more empowered identity as the adult many simply refuse to ‘believe’, yet blindly accept her words as an ‘impressionable’ and manipulated teenager? Ignoring entirely what she said three decades back here for a moment since most of her claims were disproved, and two, she never repeated herself the very elements of previously claimed ‘rape and sodomy’ elements, how does this demonstrate our lack of tolerance for alternate experiences of [legally considered] non-consensual sex? Ms Geimer’s interview shows certain key elements – those commonly used to ‘prove’ that she was ‘statutorily raped’ in newspaper stories – were contextualised in a very different way by Ms Geimer herself many people simply ignore, nullify, render the ramblings of her ‘trauma’. While she does not deny the fact that her sexual experience with Polanski was non-consensual purely for her age, her retelling includes elements of ‘romance’ that make her narrative more unconventional and therefore not the typical ‘rape scenario’ people cannot wrap their heads around. Usually women are pleased with men making efforts of ‘wining’ [and dining] them as prelude of their ‘seduction’, rather than go for their nether regions directly.
Of course, what one woman might regard as ‘romancing’ her with fine champagne and foreplay of ‘cuddliness’, the other could see it as feeling boozed up to render them ‘submissive sex objects’. As it would be in the ‘all men are rapist at heart’ feminist handbook. In contrast, Ms Geimer does not state that she was ‘plied’ with the champagne or ‘forced’ to take the part Quaalude by Polanski (not even in her original statement, but said she ‘took it’) she did not ‘refuse’ [to ‘take’] either, but rather says: “I was posing with some champagne glasses and did drink champagne… (after she had told Polanski she ‘liked’ champagne, hence his going for it after her ‘hint’, also known as subtly directing someone) thinking that was a very cool thing to do.” In addition, Ms Geimer’s nudity in the hot tub was not something she found scandalous, but instead an element of the experience that made her feel sophisticated and ‘model-like’, ‘European’. It is interesting to note how the elements that position the story as an ‘indisputable rape’ in most articles, such as the young woman’s consumption of alcohol and the nude hot tub photoshoot, appear more romantic and seductive in Ms Geimer’s very own retelling. We should think, first, about the role of champagne and hot tubs in consensual romantic encounters. Or even recreational drug use to get into the mood. Such elements are often used to ‘woo’ women as a prelude to mutually desired sex, and men who provide champagne or a relaxing hot tub soak are often considered thoughtful and romantic by their female partners. In concordance with this ‘norm’ people instantly accept when it comes to an ‘adult’ but not ‘teenager’, it appears that Polanski has ‘won her over’, at least to some degree, with these same romantic elements. (Which Vogelhut on the other hand turned into a ridiculous ‘BDSM’ setting.)
She felt ‘cool’ and mature while drinking champagne, clearly enjoyed being photographed in the ‘real pretty looking’ hot tub as she put it. Polanski treated her like his other sex partners: as an ‘adult’, as desirable, sexually attractive, while the law however was about to sour it for both. (But only because the mother had not conveyed to her taking topless photos and having sex with an older man is a no no – unlike Kinski’s mother allowing her to have romantic relations with him – or Ms Geimer had become an actress like her she so desired.) Although Ms Geimer does not convey sexual attraction to him (unlike Kinski), she notes that his celebrity held a certain degree of magnetism for her: “I thought [being photographed by Polanski] was a great opportunity. I wanted to be an actress. It seemed to look a really great, you know, boost… I was ‘star-struck’.” To some extent, then, Ms Geimer’s retelling seems to indicate other more romantic and seductive factors at play (and of course, the prospect of ‘stardom’) that are typically amiss in a ‘rape narrative’. She entirely omits ‘pain’ any genuine rape victim would experience for one, since he of course did not cause her pain either physically or mentally at no ‘forcible penetration’, even by her own words, or that he used verbal force most people entirely miss. Throughout her narration of the experience for King, she also insists on being seen as an agent, i.e., empowered as the adult today. Not once did she say: ‘he raped me’, ‘he forced me’, ‘he caused me pain’. That cannot ever be regarded as rape, let alone after saying: “He had sex with me. He wasn’t forceful or hurting me or mean or anything.”
That she once said that she had cried in the car, if true, therefore must be seen as a state of overwhelming emotions to the sex itself rather than reaction to ‘rape’. She never once called it rape. She did not tell her mother of the sex but curiously her ‘boyfriend’, (while the older sister was ‘peeved’ at the topless photos, egged the mother on to call the cops as she had testified), Ms Geimer did not tell her of any ‘rape’ but the ‘asthma [lie]’, afraid Polanski might find out she had ‘lied’. She does not report being forced to drink or remove her clothes, but rather portrays her own willing and even eager participation up until the point at which a sexual advance was made. Yet, Ms Geimer did not ‘struggle to break free’ from Polanski’s sexual advances at any stage, no matter she said she had ‘tried’. Not after the kissing, the caressing, the ‘cuddliness’ (he had not admitted to), the intercourse he described as very responsive on her part, let alone any anal contact ever proven. Instead, she ‘let him get it over with’, as she put it once, rather than remove herself from the situation she before had described as ‘giving some resistance’ she then ‘gave up on’. I.e., did not ‘actively oppose’ his advances, an action that women perform in sexual situations they are ‘intrigued’ by, ‘let happen’. I.e., acquiesce to see what will unfold, what a sophisticated man can offer them, rather than their inexperienced boyfriend, and later might describe as ‘unwanted’, hence no ‘active resistance’. Noteworthy, too, is King’s own role in the establishment of Geimer as a ‘sophisticated agent’, particularly when he highlights the fact that she was not a virgin (and thereby not an innocent) when the incident took place she did not shy from admitting.
Ms Geimer said in the 2003 interview that Polanski was wearing shorts when he went into the Jacuzzi, and that she ‘couldn’t really remember’, which is another inconsistency, since she said in her original testimony that he was naked. How can she not remember? When she also said he tried to coax her ‘to come down his end’? While he said he undressed entirely and only went into the pool? When King asked her if he forcibly raped her, she became evasive, and if he had, she sure as hell had said yes. But she didn’t, and nothing could prove he had. In fact, she had said to Polanski, “It sure is hot,” when she entered the Jacuzzi, and he, testing it with his hand, had to agree. When she asked him if he’s coming in, he declined because of that and took to the cooler pool. Huston had asked him about the Jacuzzi in the kitchen, holding the glasses in her hands when he had returned, knowing they had ‘her’ champagne and used the hot tub, when he explained things to her, and he replied, “Too hot, as usual.” This exchange puts Ms Geimer’s words of Polanski trying to get frisky with her in the Jacuzzi and that’s why she wanted to get out with the ‘asthma ploy’, into the greatest of doubts. But only if you know of this crucial discourse, Ms Geimer of course never knew of – if ever – at that time. This account can only be found in Polanski’s autobiography, and that only as the rare advance reader copy [I own] and was never published officially. Though Polanski said she told him about the non-existent asthma when he was in the other pool and asked her to get out, she turned that into this unlikely, ‘I was afraid of him’ scenario, not even being in the same tub as him, rather than simply say she felt too hot. That is why she asked him to lie down somewhere, and he said to go into the other room – the shuttered TV room to cool down there.
There was no reason for her to make up the asthma story, rather than just say she felt too overcome by the hot Jacuzzi jets as she put it herself in her original testimony. Equally, there is no reason for Polanski to make up his account, since they both obviously ended up in that TV room, and she never said that he had forced her to go there. When he asked her there if she’s ok, and she said yes, only then did he indicate her that he ‘wanted’ her. She did not give him any signs of resistance, neither verbally nor otherwise, and therefore engaged in sex with her. Ms Geimer’s account is that of a typical female who said she ‘let it all happen’, in order to be stripped off all accountabilities and her own participation. Since she never said Polanski had forced her into anything, or forced himself on her, but that she simply let him do what he did, and therefore she and her family could only do so for her age. Had she been of age, even just by the three weeks she was off her fourteenth birthday then, the case had never gone to the plea stage, especially not after her ‘lewd act’ with her mother’s boyfriend in the prosecutor’s office she of course would never mention. Polanski never expected her to lie about the events and end up in court the next day, suddenly accused of ‘rape’. They still might have called the cops, but, with the entire course of events as described by Polanski and no crucial evidence of forcible drugged rape/sodomy, the attorneys had simply dismissed the case, as they had with others at that time. But of course, the girl had elaborated on certain aspects, the jealous sister egged on the mother, and then the law took over and turned it all into a never-ending nightmare in the corrupt hands of Rittenband.
Today she desperately tries to have the case dismissed and many can see exactly ‘why’, but with the evermore corrupt/ed and vindictive law that will never happen. Funny thing is, in one of her only two TV appearances, her mother played a court ‘witness’ (‘accused’, in Starsky & Hutch) who protested her ‘innocence’ in a not too ‘talented’ show of shallow acting. So, who’s to say that she didn’t put on another show for the real courts, being an ‘actress’, pulling off another good ‘performance’ for real judges like Rittenband who was ‘starstruck’ himself. Just like her daughter had sat in front of that Grand Jury suddenly displaying an all together different ‘decorum’ to what Polanski had experienced with her, who could convince a panel of adults that she had been ‘stupefied’ and ‘compelled’ into double sodomy she oddly did not find at all tearing her apart. But then again, Larson had said there was no anal intercourse and Huston’s own testimony had not supported her from day one either. Even though Polanski is also a very skilled actor, I for one deem him more honest in real life purely for what his plenty friends, colleagues and serious business partners are saying or they’d not ever worked with him, and that he would not lie in a court of law. Remember, only the Gaileys were called to testify, not Ms Geimer’s and her mother’s boyfriend, who could have given another side of the story, and what she had told her boyfriend from his point of view, since he didn’t believe her the sex story to start with, and wasn’t at all concerned when she told him she had a part Quaalude and some champagne. Only the older half-sister pushed her into telling their mother, and then the suddenly oh so concerned mother called on the law – she regretted ever since.
When King asked Ms Geimer in 2003: “So you completed the sexual act,” she said, “Right.” King recapping: “It was just straight sex, nothing else?” she replied, “He did things and I didn’t do anything.” King making sure: “So he did but you didn’t,” she answered, “Right.” No rape victim would agree on rape as mere ‘straight sex acts’, but describe the hurt and pain it would cause. When he asked her if anything was said in the car, she said: “We really didn’t chat on the way home. We just drove back to my house with not a lot being said,” entirely omitting that she was in fact very talkative, spoke about her guitar lesson, her drama teacher, reciting ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’, and to go to the cinema to see Rocky. Not quite the scene after a ‘rape’ and ‘crying’. When King finally asked her: “If your sister hadn’t overheard the conversation with your boyfriend, would we have ever heard the story?” she said, “No, I never would have told my mom.” Exactly, because she let him ‘perform’ on her and then they all turned it into rape, even if not forcible. If it had been actual rape she had told her mother, which also puts her previous inconsistent recollections in other interviews into even greater doubts, and her actual participation. King may not have signed the Hollywood petition to ‘Free Polanski’, but he certainly was interested in complicating the blatant ‘brutal rape’ label generally assigned to this emotionally and legally very complex case. Together, Ms Geimer and King create an unorthodox ‘rape narrative’ for Ms Geimer that includes elements of romance and agency that are typically absent from actual rape victim retellings, simply because it never was ‘rape’, and many people outright deny her. And through that of course, Polanski.
Why, then, is the press and public so eager to recontextualise certain elements of her story so that it can be more easily read as ‘actual rape’, rather than letting it be the more complicated ‘seduction-unlawful sex’ that it was to the woman who experienced it? What is particularly interesting about the interview is the fact that it is not Polanski, but Ms Geimer herself who provides a more romantic narration of her ‘statutory rape’. The press, however, succeeds in recontextualising and re-narrating the event so that it signifies a ‘true rape’ of an underage ‘innocent’, rather than the ‘romantic seduction’ of an agential woman followed by ‘unlawful sex’, who had sex, alcohol and drugs before, and then had to assume the [legal] position of ‘victim’ she entirely rejects today. This recontextualisation indicates that a non-normative, ‘non-conformative’ ‘rape story’ that positions Ms Geimer as something other than a ‘preyed-upon’, ‘lured’, ‘scared’ little ‘victim’ is unintelligible to today’s ‘moral society’ and must therefore be re-narrated to become ‘brutal [‘child’] rape’. Or, ‘she must have been so traumatised’ she doesn’t know what she’s saying today, simply invalidating her words of today. As a result, all indications of her female agency, even her adult agency, rather assigning her ‘ulterior motives’, as well as the elements of romance, are mercilessly stripped from the account of that day in 1977 to make it as black and brutal as possible.
This is apparent in many reports of the event around the world: Ms Geimer’s position as an agent within the situation is entirely denied, and she is instead described as a drunk, drugged, and violated minor, leaving no room for her own actions and accountabilities and her own much more relevant interpretation of today. It seems, then, that recontextualisation of women’s words – whether they indicate refusal, or invoke female agency during a sexual encounter, rather than pure victimisation as in Ms Geimer’s case – is a common and very harmful tactic that serves to disempower women while reinscribing cultural and moral ‘feminist norms’ of [underage] seduction and rape being all but the same. Ms Geimer and her widely rejected unorthodox narrative prove that the ‘socially acceptable’ ‘rape model’ is so narrow that it silences alternate experiences, causing the press to recontextualise and re-narrate elements of accounts until they fit neatly into an intelligible package appropriate for public understanding, i.e., ‘rape is rape’, when it’s not. Only when we move beyond these repressive feminist indoctrinated norms of ‘seduction equals rape’ no matter the age of the female, will women be truly empowered, not by sending the man down for the ‘drugged’ and/or ‘drunken’ sex they had shared because she’s a minor, or might make it out as ‘rape’ because the law plays right into that highly damaging: female = victim, man = perpetrator doctrine.
In short, they want complete control not only over Polanski[’s very life in fact], but Ms Geimer’s autonomy of words, to work their own repressed will on a woman who insists upon willing for herself and not to be seen as a young victim of the older man. Today she refuses to be used as an agent of the redundant ‘power dynamic’ faculty of power-hungry anti-sex feminism imposed on both, yet, as seen not only the public denies her that right, but the very law itself – i.e., Cooley and his corrupt lot. It’s an attempt to force compliance to a way of thinking by using emotive arguments rather than basing arguments on evidence or facts. Casting aspersions at Polanski’s sexual preferences is bigoted and unnecessary posturing; it’s political correctness run amok, when his oh so immoral act of sleeping with her can be critiqued without recourse to ad hominem attacks he has no recourse to fight, but give other men and most of all women a pass who slept around or with minors. Only on bigoted US TV, trashy online sites and anally retentive tripe blogs could such egregious behaviour be considered acceptable, attacking people who dare not question the appropriateness of his behaviour but that of the LAW that had betrayed both. This type of decorum is prevalent in a ‘rape is rampant’ culture where virtually anything goes now, without any standards of right and wrong or appropriate and inappropriate, where cowardly editors hide behind their endless blathering about ‘save our innocent children from predators like Polanski’ and ‘what if that were your daughter’ emotional blackmail, while predator Lewis and her self-confessed underage prostitution days, drug abuse and later sexual excesses cause no condemnation.
No, Lewis is a ‘woman’ and MUST be allowed to ‘explore her sexuality’, or of course conversely is the victim of all these men SHE had bedded while the men today are her abusers. Or rather only the one she chose to bear the brunt of her own pathetic failings and addictions (in order to influence the extradition, which as we saw backfired massively and she deservedly made a backstabbing liar of herself). Had Polanski not been rearrested she’d never ever come out with her contemptible attacks. In today’s über moral climate of sexual abuse hysterias and hyper vigilance all you need to do to tar someone is raise the spectre that they ‘may’ be a danger to ‘children’ and no evidence needs to be presented, other than lies from some sad ex-lovers like Lewis and Vogelhut, and the person can then be eviscerated in a verbal bloodbath. It’s the cutting edge of moralising mob mentality gone unacceptably out of hands. Or rather, it’s ONLY in the hands of these sanctimonious keyboard lynchers who will never be taken to court for their slanderous character assassinations. Even though some say that the original accuser, Ms Geimer, wants the charges dismissed, true, they however maintain the other two, Lewis and Vogelhut, do not, that’s not quite correct. For one, neither ever filed any ‘charges’ at any given time they could have – but only gave us allegations we know are all but lies – of which the first accuser today supports Polanski as the empowered adult. The second discredited herself entirely through her very own self-defeating earlier interviews and disempowering ‘victimhood’ of today, and the third turned some sexual encounter into a sordid BDSM story to sell her book. Great examples of d/evolved feminism dis/empowerment.
People also keep rejecting the impact Ms Geimer’s physical and mental maturity level, and her very nubile appearance had on Polanski, dubbing her looks as being irrelevant – when that in fact is highly significant, unlike her chronological age, also still disputed. Of course most never saw her, unlike Helena and Huston or the attorneys and judge, in the very provocative flesh, picturing a little kid, when that’s not the case and the pictures floating around online are not the ones Polanski had taken of her, although they still convey that she looked like a well-developed pretty teenager, not a ‘little child’. The only accurate pictures of her appear in Zenovich’s documentary showing just how developed and mature she really was. To give gravitas to her physical attributes for one would not only explain that Polanski was only attracted to very mature and developed young women who appeared older, and not any naïve little girls below the onset of puberty who wouldn’t know sex from sweets, yet. He was attracted to females in his younger days ever since Tate’s death who looked like young adults, in their late teens or early twenties, and in fact were of very similar beauty, his ‘type’. This case only proves that many girls, or even boys, do in fact appear much older especially with make-up on, act more maturely and posses much more knowledge in many fields many adults – or indeed the law and envious feminists in general – simply deny them to have, exercise or even demand. It also proves what the psychiatrists had established already in 1977 that Polanski was of no paedophilic tendencies, let alone in need of drugging and raping any of his sexual partners.
I’m sure the professionals who interviewed Polanski about the incident, his life and sexual activities, knew better, or else they had declared him a mentally disordered sex offender, which was routine check when it came to underage sex cases. They did not. All they came up with what that he was severely depressed for his past traumas, and to like sex to compensate. Of course the case never went to trial to prove any of the charges levied against him, since Polanski eventually pleaded to one of them on the pressure of the mother who realised what it comes down to was unlawful sex, and for the already established evidence in his favour not supporting her daughter’s claims of ‘unwanted’ intercourse let alone [double] sodomy. He had pleaded not guilty on arraignment as one does, and therefore all [the dropped] but one charge he admitted to are to this day still only allegations, NOT fact. What’s more, her mother most of all could have demanded to have him plead to the most serious count – drugged rape had it been provable – or prison time even without any trial. But she did not, and neither did Ms Geimer ever want Polanski behind bars. She also could have demanded to secure his earlier arrest many times, but she did not. Instead, she was shocked and petitioned not only for the charges be dropped before that, the case entirely dismissed, and demanded his release once he was rearrested. Why? Because it never was rape as her very own later interviews demonstrate, utterly void of the typical rape narrative assigned to sexual assault cases, demanding not only no punishment for Polanski she emphasised often enough, but to let him be.
Had he really raped her, violated her, forced her, hurt her, she’d demanded the opposite from the word go, not described events in an unorthodox manner of infatuation, seduction, ‘pretty settings’, champagne, and an older sophisticated man who desired her, wanted to further her. No, the only thing she clings to is that it was non-consensual – purely for her age. Today unfortunately the adult woman is not believed, and people simply don’t understand her true motives, unable to read between the lines, ‘listen’ to what she says. No, they must assign all sorts so ‘affected reasoning’ to her words of today, rather than take them as she puts them. Even her original testimony if closely scrutinised is in effect entirely void of a typical forced rape narrative – despite the fact that she elaborated on certain things to make her fit into the legal box of ‘victim’, render her blameless of all her own actions. It does foremost not include any aspects of ‘pain’, or that Polanski ‘forced’ her to do anything. No, he asked her, he directed her, he did not shout at or intimate her, hurt her physically or emotionally or she had said so. He even showed concerns about the [faked] asthma, if she felt better, and foremost, he took steps not to impregnate her by engaging into coitus interuptus – no rapist would ever bother with. All we have is a rather blasé recount of the sexual acts she claims he had engaged in, any genuine rape victim would have painted in a much more drastic light, said he forced himself inside her and that it caused her to scream and cry in pain, not, ‘he put his thing in my butt’ and it didn’t even hurt. No unprepared anal intercourse is painless.
She further didn’t say ‘why’ she was ‘afraid’ of him, and she never explained what he had done to ‘make’ her ‘afraid’ – let alone how he managed to ‘make’ her do things. Even if you ‘let things happen’, you have to ‘comply’ with them first, move, act and follow instructions and say so. She only said he ‘offered’ her part of the Quaalude – he had denied and that she took a piece – and she in fact said that he had asked her if she wanted it (he also denied), which by all means is a ‘question’ to start with, not an ‘order’ for her to take it, ‘make’ her. She could not only have refused to take it, but she in fact said herself, ‘I took it’, not that he forced it on her. When asked why she took it, she said, she must have been pretty drunk or else she hadn’t – which again was her own doing that she drank herself rather than just pose with the bubbly for the photos. Polanski didn’t force the champagne on her and she did not say that he had, nor in fact had it affected her like that from a few sips as she claimed. But, what’s even more significant is the fact that she went back into the kitchen to eat something to counteract the drug/alcohol interactions, suddenly ‘clear of thinking’ the next moment that SHE had made a mistake HER own doing by swallowing it, NOT his, since she could have refused the Quaalude to start with. So, to assign her a loss of ‘momentary mental clarity’ when SHE took it and drank it down, and then tried to rectify her fallacious doing the very next moment, clearly shows she HAD clear reasoning faculties, was not as ‘intoxicated’ as she made it out or else she’d not tried to undo it, and did everything on her own volition. Just as Polanski had stated.
What’s more, she obviously must have taken both together before (unlike claiming once that she had just ‘one’ Quaalude but admitted she was drunk before, with an addicted sister and mother she filched them from hardly a good example) or she’d not ever realised she made a mistake and what the effects would be: i.e., get aroused. That’s why there was no count for alcohol plying – and because they had found the champagne in Nicholson’s fridge first of all. Saying she had his glass too only shows she was used to champagne since she had told Polanski she ‘liked’ it, and in fact says the opposite of any direct involvement on his part, since he did not force her to drink any alcohol to start with. If she was clever enough to realise that the champagne and Quaalude was a bad idea, shows not only rational thinking, but that she knew it was a mistake drunken people would hardly grasp. And what’s more, was her speech slurred as it would be if someone is ‘pretty drunk’? Neither Huston nor Polanski and for that matter her mother, sister or boyfriend did ever say she spoke as if drunk – ergo, she was not drunk. All she explains has no aspects of his forcing her to do any of it – just as he had said. To say she ‘let it all happen’, when it clearly requires her to actively partake in any of it, is ‘allowing’ him to ‘perform on her’ in the first place, i.e. consenting. To say she said no has no meaning, if her overall behaviour and course of events simply do not corroborate her claims, and he never said she told him off in any form – but that she was very responsive. She never once complained of distress, and at the absence of any physical signs of forcible penetration, she let him have intercourse with her he then cut short, plain and simple.
Though she might have been the more passive agent in regards to the sex, today she tries to distance herself from it all as the active agent, the adult, because she made the mistake to let him have sex and then blamed it all on him for her age. Today she demands recognition of her agency, but the vindictive US law and bigoted public couldn’t care less. Such endless blanket victim/perpetrator terminology and condemnation is simply unrealistic and creates needless misery. It’s unethical. The real ‘power differential’ between consensually-amorous minor-adult couples and the anti-sex laws is to destroy such a union simply for the age difference. To say, ‘consensual’ is not possible in a power-imbalanced relationship and that’s why there are statutory rape laws condemning the adult only – another person might argue that it is highly unreasonable for a consensual relationship to be rape one day and not the day following the person’s age-of-consent birthday. True, these laws have been designed exclusively to dictate people with whom they may sleep, nothing else, not to prevent any ‘rape’. Rape would occur no matter what the law says or how high the age of consent is set. No, it only will send more innocent men to jail for sex for the impenetrable and unconstitutional Rape Shield Laws implemented discriminatorily against the defendant, blocking his right of due process and a proper defence allowing exculpatory evidence, while the accuser is hiding behind them at no proof needed anymore in any form that a rape took place, who could be nothing but a liar like Lewis and Vogelhut. People aren’t robots or can be programmed as to when they ‘may’ have sex or not or with whom.
When so-called ‘ethics’, ‘society’ or draconian laws start to disregard that simple logic, disallow human interaction and destroy people regardless, no right-minded adult would condemn a romantic relationship with a mature teenager. But then laws are not intended for the ‘right-minded’ are they now – no, they are for what they ‘believe’ are ‘possibly’ [future] ‘predators’, blankly condemning teenagers as being incapable to be ‘romantic’ and committed to an adult, and that the adult is ALWAYS the ‘predator’, manipulator, abuser. Mainly the man of course, when in fact in can be the other way round as seen so often. But, only the adult lands in prison, NOT ever the minor, (unless the boy is a minor too, needlessly destroying his entire life), who might have instigated the relationship or lied about what happened in order to avoid responsibility or punishment. There were many liaisons in history with older men marrying much younger women, even underaged teenagers, but only Polanski seems to have been chosen as the whipping boy for all sexual offences on the planet. What people simply ignore is this fact: teens only lie because the laws disallow/ed them to engage with an adult in the first place – rather than enable them and everybody’s happy, save people a lot of pain, tragedies and mounting money and legal resource problems – and therefore also give them a pass for lying out of spite in some cases, i.e., cry rape; not out of ‘necessity’ to ‘oblige’ the law because they’re underage. And all that over ‘sex’, which should be enjoyed, not ever punished. Polanski had long admitted his guilt over the sex, that he had taken advantage of the situation, though she let him – even pleaded to it, took responsibility, was in prison for it, twice – and that’s what it is all about: to let it finally go.
This is what happens when you combine a high degree of suggestibility, emotional intrigue and pressure (or immaturity), attention seeking, zero accountability, zero consequences, blaming others, female gender bias and an emotionally over-reactive media and [rape] culture who are quick to believe any little girl (no matter her actual age) who cries rape. Real child abuse happens every day usually perpetrated by females feminists would never admit, and what Ms Geimer, her mother, sister and others like her did by calling on the law, is an affront to true rape and sexual abuse victims. Of course, it’s easy to ‘forgive’ Polanski and demand the charges be dismissed since he never raped her to begin with, when a real rape victim would never forgive her rapist (no matter feminists declare so in order to keep the man in the rapist/paedophile bracket even if he is not) – but on the other hand makes it sound as if he had since she ‘forgave’ him for ‘it’, which in itself is utterly contradictive since she in fact never said ‘he raped me’. But then again, that’s all she’s ever done, contradict herself from day one and in each of her later interviews. Lewis on the other hand is a typical histrionic, dangerous fabricator and borderline narcissist with a massive personality disorder, indulging in chronic blaming, living in a fantasy world where the rules and laws of society apply to everyone else but not her, and an [inability or] unwillingness to take responsibility for her own actions and subsequent failures in order to play the poor little victim. And she can be bought to tell her sordid little abuse lies. Vogelhut in contrast is just an old woman who loves big hats and tell sleazy BDSM stories in a rather blasé way to sell her kiss-and-tell book.
That said, as someone else once observed, ever since Polanski had shown the LA courts the finger after Rittenband had played out his own ‘agency’ and laws and no matter what Ms Geimer wants today, they are still pissed that Polanski was and is still a popular figure, still a very successful artist despite all odds, still respected as a human, still gained more supporters and raised another family with a gorgeous young wife and children who love him. Jealousy unbound. Here was the chance to make him ‘pay’ once he was rearrested in a humiliating show of heavy-handed betrayal. Polanski had no history of ‘rape’ let alone ‘child abuse’ before or after this case, yet they invented all sorts of more ‘victims’ for him just because he had many lovers. See Lewis and Vogelhut who turned it all around later and made themselves into ‘victims’, NOT Polanski. The petty moralists were going to win this one, they thought, were going to teach Hollywood a ‘lesson’ in the go. The US was going to undo all of the cultural changes of the Sixties to empower women sexually once and for all solely for his ‘benefit’, when Polanski found himself in the middle of a cultural backlash with feminists gone viral. He always said the sex was consensual, but it did not matter since she was a minor, while their own celebrities got away with statutory rape ever since. Today Ms Geimer says the case should be dropped, but her opinion does not matter either. There is no statue of limitations for a person who flees from the US justice system, but there is a lot of reason to say that the miscarriage of justice that caused Polanski to take flight to begin with is utterly unacceptable. He was betrayed by lawmakers, pure and simple. And so was she.
People keep saying that the original charges are still pending because Polanski wasn’t sentenced [yet] and therefore convicted of what he pleaded to – which in itself is contradictive, since, once you plead to one count the other dropped counts are off the table even if you weren’t sentenced to any jail time yet. Others in contrast saying he WAS convicted because he pleaded are just as wrong, since Cooley won’t allow his [plea and] two prison terms be turned into time served, i.e., be declared ‘sentenced’ and therefore [would be] ‘convicted’. Polanski technically is a non-sentenced, non-convicted fugitive who pleaded to one of the original charges, was in prison for it they had agreed on was his entire punishment, i.e. ‘sentence’, and yet, his status is still in limbo because they won’t make that official to be finally declared AS ‘convicted’. So strictly he’s not a convict or felon either no matter he pleaded guilty, since they won’t acknowledge he had sat out his time for that one count, i.e., was convicted of it as his entire punishment, was his entire sentence, since Rittenband hadn’t made it official. Cooley of course says all the charges are still on the agenda because he fled, and that the two prison terms are merely countable towards the two years he’d love to apply as minimum ‘sentence’ applicable [today] for what Polanski had pleaded to, when the flight charge has no bearing on the actual guilty plea (or vice versa) and only the pleaded [to] charge stands he did time for and only the laws of 1977/8 can be applied [retroactively]. So all in all, it’s just one big mess, all his prison time was for nothing, his house arrest lost time, and time is running out to see this ever resolved.
With more showbiz articles swooping in on the announcement that Polanski will go on making films after the ten months interruption could not slow him down longer than that, despite some naives or wishful thinkers having thought Polanski would ‘retire’ from movie making after his rearrest/release, one idiot/blogger just had to spew out another spiteful article about a cinematic genius by titling it: ‘Rapist/director Polanski to film God of Carnage’ attracting the usual blahdeeblah comments. While Polanski of course has no means to deservedly sue the crap out of these name-callers, no one had bothered to slander him, boycott his films, or accuse his cast members of being ‘rape apologists’ before his rearrest, DESPITE the fact that Polanski was in the news every time he was to make a film and for both he and Ms Geimer trying to have the case dismissed since decades – with NO such smear attached. Hypocrisy comes to mind. But, after the critical success of The Ghost Writer he is [still] at the top of his game, shows no signs of quitting and continues to have top artists STILL flocking in to be a part of his films, since everyone who ever worked with him speaks only highly of him. Unless your name is liar Lewis. And, why exactly do people STILL say, he is ‘forced’ to film in Paris since he cannot enter the US? Polanski is NOT a ‘Hollywood filmmaker’! His studios, financing, casting, and marketing all take place outside of the money-oriented Hollywood structure ever since he made Chinatown in 1973. That’s thirty-seven years ago!
He made stage shows and films in Europe foremost, and they do not have any ‘Hollywood’ financing/marketing behind them outside independent US cinemas/DVD distributors who want to make money. Polanski’s movies are not of one genre as other directors choose to perfect or are capable of doing more or less well, showing the director’s unusual gift for working in multiple genres, and his cinematic talents and perfectionism have never been in dispute. And, why would he ‘want’ to film on ‘original locations’ to begin with? He made beautiful Tess entirely in France looking like the English countryside epitomised. He made the remarkable ‘all-English’ Oliver Twist entirely on a Polish studio lot built from scratch looking like Dickens’ time par excellence. His Ghost Writer was made in Berlin and the German island of Sylt stood in for New England’s Martha’s Vineyard, while everything else was studio and in fact CGI to look authentic ‘American’. The worst thing one can Polanski accuse of is having slept with a minor like millions had and will, and there will always be people who are willing to work with him knowing he is NOT a rapist let alone paedophile, and those who can watch his movies without that association. Such people are simply more compassionate and understanding, indeed forgiving and not of self-righteous self-obsessed hypocrisy, willing to accept that one ‘immoral’ act does NOT encompass an entire human being, define his entire life, and that it is high time to move on and concentrate on Polanski’s work, who had more success and support than most can only dream of achieving.
Having found out more about the plot of the God of Carnage play/film, it’s about the aftermath of a fight between teenager Bruno who refuses to let his friend Ferdinand join his ‘gang’, so Ferdinand knocks out two of Bruno’s teeth with a stick. The story starts when both children’s parents meet to discuss the fight. Ferdinand’s father Alain is described as a lawyer never off his cellphone, while the mother Annette’s purpose is seemingly only to manage her husband’s wealth. Bruno’s father Michel is a wholesaler who has to take care of his sick mother, while his mother Véronique is working on a book about Darfur. Things come to a head with the parents devolve into childish behaviours themselves and end up getting into irrational arguments about such loaded topics as misogyny, racial prejudice and homophobia. A blistering look at societal dysfunction when the couples attempt to settle the playground conflict, the evening spirals out of control and into a wicked battle between the sexes. It’s unclear who will play whose parents or spouses, their children, whether Polanski will add extra drama to the film beyond just their arguments at night, or if he’ll stick pretty close to the original play which reads more like a comedy in fact. Since another comedy is in order now, after The Ghost’s political and Pianist’s highly emotional themes, it will be great to see these four great actors clash on screen. Waltz is in fact German, and the story was originally set in Paris to begin with, (hence their French names) not ‘Brooklyn’ as in the Broadway play later. Reza is Parisian, and the play’s original title was Le Dieu du Carnage. God of Carnage premiered in London, but changed to Brooklyn when the production made its Broadway transfer in 2009. So they wouldn’t have to film in New York in the first place even if Polanski were able to travel or work there. Maybe a bit more research and less diatribe would help – idiots.
While some even lesser informed bloggers posted articles titled Polanski’s God of Carnage as his ‘comeback movie’, I really wonder where they’ve been over the last year since The Ghost (Writer) came out on DVD only the other month and had premiered in Berlin THIS VERY YEAR 2010 and won best director there, apart from best film given by the International Federation of Film Critics. A ‘comeback’ applies only to a hiatus of work spanning at least ten years. Polanski usually rested for a year or two, three even between making films, so to say ‘comeback’ when his new film was in fact already announced last year after he had finished The Ghost, and is being confirmed this year to go ahead next year, that’s nowhere near even his own pausing between projects. Now, originally reported by ‘Deadline London’ that the second male lead was ‘rumoured’ to be Matt Dillon and every other blog/article has repeated that, mine included at no other official sources as of yet, when this story first went live Dillon was listed as playing the other father, but, apparently his name has since been withdrawn and the casting of the second father is reportedly still in the works. This is nothing unusual when it comes to getting new films into the can, since at the start of a project actors might want to join a cast, and then cannot for some reason, or they were considered and then no longer. Sometimes the very actors are in fact the last thing the director and producer/s consider for their film. Funny thing is, someone keen to see what Polanski will make of it, in a nice piece of ‘logic’ he said that he belongs in jail – and though as able a genius Polanski is to finish a film in prison unlike most would, I doubt he can bring his crew and cast along to film it while incarcerated.
The fact that superb actors of Foster’s, Winslet’s and Waltz’s calibre have guaranteed to be part of his Oscar-hopeful film at this stage, speaks volumes of support for Polanski the auteur no one can fault, no matter what people say about their ‘misled motives’, or Polanski. Again, simply assuming that they back a ‘rapist’ rather than wanting to be part of his acclaimed work and experiencing his directing genius. Besides, Reza as the original playwright has a say in the casting too, and if she’s not happy with someone, can veto him or her out of the project. While someone else humorously titled his blog, ‘Polanski wreaks vengeance with Carnage’, alluding to his ‘release’ to go on making films to others’ envy, every other blog repeats that the story will be set in Brooklyn. No it won’t, or ever was in the original play to begin with, only in the New York production, and that Polanski and his cast will have to film it in Paris because, get this: ‘he’s wanted by ‘police’ in the US after a woman alleged in 2008 that Polanski raped her in 1977’, this however is the most ridiculous nonsense I’ve ever read. It’s clear that they mean Ms Geimer, who however never said Polanski ‘raped’ her. She has demanded that the charges be dismissed, the case dropped, closed, anything but to see Polanski behind bars long before ‘2008’ and after his rearrest/release they’re obviously unaware of besides. And ‘wanted by ‘police’’? That’s the same bullshit to say that it happened at a party at Nicholson’s house (or that she testified he drugged her with ‘painkillers’). Talk about complete and utter misinformation. Or continuous, deliberately misleading slander. Never trust the ‘media’ – they’re the biggest liars. On the one hand sites like YouTube remove racist videos, but they don’t bother with libellous anti-Polanski attacks.
With another Zürich Film Festival underway, I found out something interesting concerning the one which was misused to snare Polanski. Apparently, he was not up for the ‘Golden Icon Award’ I read everywhere he was to get, but in fact the ‘A tribute to… Award’ he was to be honoured with for his lifetime achievement last year. And, he was supposed to give a group of film students a master class in film making. While the festival organisers were ‘taken aback’, ‘regretted the circumstances’ regarding the arrest, protested against these vocally, saying: “We are shocked and unable to comprehend this situation, which has affected us deeply. At no time were we aware of the planned arrest,” they added that Polanski’s award would go ahead, “to give everyone, who would like to express their solidarity as well as their admiration a chance to share this feeling.” However, the actual ‘A tribute to…’ page linked from Polanski’s own Wikipedia page has since then been removed from the actual Zürich Film Festival homepage – it’s gone. They simply deleted the entire retrospective given in his name, that it ever happened and their honouring him so proudly. That means he didn’t get the apparent prize money (if there was such a thing that went with it) either, or the ‘award’ as such – since no official references to it exists any longer, despite the well-received retrospective, which in effect doesn’t ‘exist’ any more either and the students had to leave disappointed. While many think this is more than disgusting and cannot see Polanski going there ever again, on a more humorous note, the outgoing Swiss minister Leuenberger made a reference to the incident last year when he joked that he accepted the festival’s invitation only hesitantly, since guests of honour can ‘sometimes [land] in the wrong film’, i.e., in prison, and quipped he’s under house arrest anyway. So should Cooley be.
With the arrival of the renowned International Film Festival do Rio 2010, the mezzanine there will be exclusively dedicated to the grand ‘Roman Polanski Exhibition’ as a pictorial and photographic homage to the master director, as The Rio Times put it, telling the story of his illustrious career chronologically, with rare photos and posters serving as a visual memory lane. Polanski, long stalked by misfortunes, volubly pursued by Hollywood’s pastime of psychoanalysing his films, his life, that his tragedies, his ‘terrible childhood’ had ‘twisted his mind’, had little sympathy for people engaging in this sort of unprofessional ‘pop psychoanalysis’ they like to levy on him through [analysing/comparing] his films [with his life/character], which he describes as ‘bullshit’. In an interview given just four days after his arraignment, he proclaimed to US People Weekly in March 1977: “I don’t believe human character is built on these things. Its real source is genetic and what you’ve experienced in your first three years in life. I was raised with gentleness and care and love.” Then the Nazis put a nasty end to his loving upbringing years later by killing his pregnant mother, taking away his father and half-sister leaving him to his own devices, his teenage years in the ghetto, near death from a grenade explosion, a bomb blast hurling him through a glass door, and then at the hands of a thug. Then he had a near-fatal car accident that left him with another serious head injury, followed by Sharon’s terrible loss that devastated him, and the rape accusation and endless slander causing him only more needless anguish.
Saying in 1977: “My work is the only thing [that counts] in my life,” that premise of course turns movie critics into even greater amateur analysts, noting his career-long preoccupation with alienation and isolation. To them, he refused to accept that his traumatic life made him a trafficker of sensation, and since there’s little violence in his films they keep bringing up, they latch on to the few rape scenes, people too like to ‘equate’ to his own ‘rape’. That is nothing but one-dimensional ‘feminist logic’ and ignorant folly, or other film-makers had turned rapists after filming even more violent films. He also had a reply to radical ‘women’s lib’ (where women can just lie about rape with impunity), and that none of the endless streams of ‘blond starlets’ running after him he became disenchanted by and culled from his circle, (those of Vogelhut’s ‘kind’) could ever compete with his murdered wife who accepted him for who he was. Having lost that anchor in life he turned to females who demanded little – and even that was turned against him by an opportunistic mother of a nubile teenager, and ugly has-beens like Lewis and Vogelhut much later. He found solace in the company of pleasant young people, not only females, who in turn kept him young. He kept himself fit and never stopped learning, become evermore sophisticated, cultured, skilled, and he shared that knowledge generously, professionally and privately. His support for others on many levels on and off stage earned him loyalty in turn, the lasting friendships and artistic recognitions.
Hollywood actor Tony Curtis, who died today September 30th aged 85, (and in fact had an uncredited ‘phone speaking role’ in Rosemary’s Baby) had a wife forty-five years his junior, but people point to Polanski’s younger wife with scolding fingers being a mere three decades his junior he lived with since over two decades now, who stands by him through thick and thin with loving kids at their side. Millions of people did and do what Polanski did, except hardly anyone was or is so resilient and tough, so talented and successful despite all odds to forge ahead. Everyone gives people a pass when it comes to something ‘immoral’ they did in the past – even murder – as long as they ‘repent’ and grovel and beg for forgiveness. When it comes to someone who slept with as teenager once and paid for it endlessly after the law played devil’s advocate, no one thinks what he did should stay behind him, not used against him forever and ever, ignore what he did prior and post that incident, that he had a very successful life most would never achieve. His typical detractors dress up their attack rhetoric in a garb of pure filth and condemnation foremost, or, [sudden] ‘responsibility’, of, oh I would never do that! (But most probably had.) Or, duplicitous show of ‘concern’ for the ‘children’, pointing their sermon fingers at Polanski, not ever asking what his side of the story is, blaming him for all the evils in this world THEY had created to start with or allowed to fester, NOT him. He made films as far as I’m concerned, and no ‘art’ is ‘evil’.
How did one Russian director put it the other day: “It’s not about ‘who’ Polanski is. First and foremost, he’s a human being, no different than any other. It’s not about whether he deserves some ‘privileges’ for being an ‘artist’. If we are talking about a law-based state which protects the rights of all citizens with the help of Roman Civil Law, then anyone must be eligible to receive equal justice. Be it the president, a bohemian artist or anyone else, it doesn’t matter. Equal rights and equal punishment for all, otherwise a feeling of terrible injustice emerges in society. Talking about Polanski, I cannot understand one thing: it’s been 33 years, there has already been an out-of-court settlement and everything has been agreed upon with everybody and to let it rest, close the case, even dismiss the charges. He’s done his time and should officially be sentenced to time served. But, no, the law has to ‘reign’ again, (i.e., Cooley) pursue him relentlessly. And in this case I’m wondering: does it have to? Why render ‘justice’ regardless of what was approved on by all sides? American ‘justice’ suddenly decided to go after Polanski in Switzerland. Injustice reigns across the whole world, that’s obvious. So when ‘justice’ suddenly begins to take hold in this or that part of the world, it’s just ridiculous. It’s NOT justice. I think the Polanski case is a circus act. He’s already paid for what he’s done, she wants him be left alone – why all this vindictive show of legal posturing?” Exactly. But, the tree trunk of the very Law has so many rotten branches of useless DAs and corrupt judges, and these DAs and judges are the rotten fruit of the poisonous tree of Justice. Especially in the US, the land of no hope and no glory, where mad hatters like Rittenband can get away with destroying people’s lives.
Now October 5th, Polanski had told AFP yesterday he was happy to join his friends again during his first more public outing in Paris since his release, after he was out and about some time back with Emmanuelle and their son to dine at a restaurant. “I am happy to be in Paris, to find my friends again,” he said during the opening of a new exhibition on feminine hairstyles through the history of cinema, ‘Brune/Blonde’ at the French Cinematheque. Polanski was welcomed in Paris by a friendly crowd including actress and singer Arielle Dombasle (who appeared in Tess) and the veteran ‘Z’ filmmaker Costa-Gavras. “He is a great director who has been badly treated. He is free and that is what matters. He is preparing a film and that is even more important,” the director of the French Cinematheque Serge Toubiana said. Quite – and there’s no signs of ‘hiding’ many had expected he’d be practicing. Not Polanski, whose first public appearance after his release in July was at the Montreux Jazz Festival in Switzerland to attend Emmanuelle’s concert, but since then has been staying in an undisclosed location with his family. His French lawyer has said he would not be making any public statement regarding the case. While people keep wondering why he never said anything in his defence, Ms Geimer in contrast giving a couple of well-meaning if inconsistent interviews, campaigning for his release after several petitions to drop the charges, they are obviously oblivious of the fact that he has done so often enough over the years. He eventually gave up on explaining things after being asked about the events no one paid attention to and simply remaining silent, disinclined to oblige the ignorant audience any further. Today he doesn’t owe anyone anything in that respect, especially not to those who weren’t even alive at the time of the events.
October 7th, and Ms Geimer has once again talked to Larry King on his show, saying, she is very relieved that Polanski was not extradited from Switzerland. “I’m very happy that, you know, I think they did the right thing,” she said in her first interview since Polanski was released in July 2010. “I’m happy they didn’t extradite him. I don’t want to see him go to trial. And I just certainly don’t want to show up and be part of that if it happens…” Of course not, because she wouldn’t emerge quite that innocent of the entire course of events as she had painted it as teenager since she had no autonomy to consent despite being shielded by laws in her favour for her age, (though not fabrications from several parties to make her the entirely innocent participant on top) and always demanded not to see Polanski in jail, hence her mother pressing for the plea deal. Then, decades later when she had autonomy, she retold her story in conflicting interviews as a picture of dual responsibilities she however escaped simply, again, for her age. Of course it had been ‘traumatic’, but purely for the law messing with both she never wanted involved. Had the evidentiary hearing (Walgren demanded in his extradition request he and Cooley had signed) been held with fairness to BOTH sides had Polanski been extradited, since these days she cannot simply plead the Fifth or draw contempt of court, Polanski had walked to time served. But, of course, he didn’t trust ANY of them anymore to submit to it and the Swiss put an end to his fight. “When he was re-arrested I was surprised. I was shocked. I was just terrified. I knew something bad was going to happen. I just didn’t know what it was going to be, but I knew it could only be bad for me.” Indeed, since then she’d be forced to testify she always said she wouldn’t. NOT to ‘face him’ and ‘relive her ordeal’, no, because she knows of the [even more] corrupt legal process and vicious media circus [today] and because it never was actual rape.
“If just the arrest brought such a ruckus into my life and into my backyard in a literal sense… I’m sure his coming back would just be a thousand times worse.” Without a doubt, because she also knows that Walgren & Co would deploy all sorts of ‘il/legal tools’ and underhand strategies to see Polanski serve more time (even if only on probation minus time served to make an even bigger example of him) – despite Espinoza already having said it would only [be held] to sentence him to (Chino and Swiss remand) time served. But, Walgren had undoubtedly also tried to have Lewis’ utterly preposterous claims be taken into account retroactively under the unfair Evidence Code 1108, for the Rape Shield Laws protecting not only Ms Geimer, but liars like Lewis, or else Cooley had not dug her up for Allred to parade her in that disturbing press show farce, and later use her in court to ‘testify’ [her lies] against Polanski since Ms Geimer had always said she would NOT. If Espinoza had allowed her claims to be taken serious is another question, since he has the last word to use discretion as to what is deemed ‘useful’ (obviously only for the prosecution, otherwise the Code wouldn’t in fact exist to allow utter hearsay and lies used against a defendant and the defence might not have the fair chance to point to the fact that Lewis had said the exact opposite years ago). “The decision doesn’t bother me at all. I hope he continues to be successful. I hope he – you know… I wish nothing but the best for him and his family. We’ve all been through a lot. I’d like to see him just be sentenced to time served, and that we could both stop being used to continue this matter.” Exactly.
And what genuine rape victim would ever speak like this, or not want to see their violator behind bars or in court? Not one – and this is of course where people stumble over her perfectly honest words, assigning them all sorts of ‘ulterior motives’, while others realise there’s much more to this story, like ‘consent’ she did, but legally could not give, hence her pleas to let Polanski be. She blamed Polanski’s decision to flee on the judge, who she said had been unfair to Polanski, i.e., made an example of him for WHO he was. That’s an understatement, and Cooley does EXACTLY the same today. “He served his time (she in fact had not asked for already then though many US media outlets in fact cite/d as the very opposite to keep the fires of hate stoked) and he did everything he was asked to do.” Correct – but Rittenband had his own press show to run, leaving Polanski on tenterhooks for months before slinging him into Chino against all counsel because of that Oktoberfest photo lying manipulator Wells had teased him with. “We had a corrupt judge who was being dishonest. Polanski had no reason to trust the system, and I’ve been so much more damaged by the court system and by the media than by him.” Exactly, since it never was the ‘brutal rape’ people still think it was, or they’d had him plead to the more serious drugged rape or sodomy charge. But, no evidence of forced sex, no plea to either charges but to what he was guilty of: unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, nothing else. On the other hand, to say that the media had damaged her, how does that comport with the fact that she as the ‘victim’ was believed and only Polanski reviled, at least in today’s ‘all men are rapists’ climate, and yet goes on a high-profile talk show to expose herself to more scrutiny?
Ms Geimer once more urged the LA County DA’s Office, i.e., Cooley, to drop the case, though that’s unlikely to happen unless the Appeals or Superior Court steps in once again. “Going after Roman Polanski doesn’t protect anybody,” she said. “It just distracts from more important things.” Exactly, but who cares about current real crimes. She also told King that Polanski wrote her a note of apology years later, which people simply deny him he ever had, a clear sign of remorse they also refute he has ever shown. To mention that note might sound nice and in his favour, but it leaves the audience in the erroneous belief that he apologised to her for ‘raping’ her, not just having had unlawful sex with her as HE had expressed it in interviews. She told King that she thinks that critics of Polanski simply don’t ‘like’ him and ‘use’ her and what happened as ‘an excuse’ to pursue him this relentlessly. Very astute observation. While people of course could not help themselves in their glorious condemnation, they went on another pathetic ranting trip right after she spoke out, on how ‘disgusted’ they are about her ‘speaking in his defence’, deem her as ‘corrupted and defiled beyond recognition’, rather than realise she’s not this ‘eternal victim’ they want her to be, not by Polanski’s hands but the law’s, demanding that she ‘had the courage to speak against him’. It’s a sad show of self-righteous ignorance and insolence, since they cannot ever imagine her sitting on a chat show advocating for Polanski simply because he’s not her ‘rapist’, (let alone a paedophile they still keep bringing up in their glorious misinformation) and should simply get the idea that she speaks for herself, her own experience, her own right not to see Polanski punished, not any other ‘victims’ , who certainly have their own right to pursue THEIR attacker, NOT Polanski as their whipping boy who had nothing to do with them.
Unable to draw a line, they demand him to ‘pay for his crime against this once young woman’, when it never was rape and she can demand whatever she likes NOT ‘them’ – it was consensual albeit unlawful sex no one in the better know debates – therefore not traumatic enough for her to demand his further punishment people just don’t get in their one-dimensional hypocrisy. It’s the vindictive legal system that’s making it traumatic for everyone involved, and the ignorant public, not Polanski. She has been able to move on in life decades ago, has a family like Polanski, and whereas he is still facing unprecedented demonisation and charges, she in fact wants them dropped to end this farce. No genuine rape victim demands that. But then again, the majority simply don’t get that ONE very crucial detail – or else she would demand his further punishment, even without her participation, and call him her rapist. She never has, only the press. No, she petitioned for his freedom and to leave him alone. Her highly negligent mother should also have been held responsible for allowing a minor to have drinks and drugs at home, and even sex with her boyfriend and others Ms Geimer herself admitted to, or even for letting her go with Polanski unsupervised so she could say she said ‘no’ but didn’t really, just so to escape all accountability. But no, they were all given a pass and for twisting things to fully blame Polanski so the plea bargain was pressed for instead to end it, while Polanski had to serve time no one demanded but to give him probation he was on since almost a year already after his release from Chino.
Why aren’t these holier-than-thou bigots more concerned about the numerous serial offenders in their very own neighbourhood right NOW, instead of wasting efforts on Polanski by advocating for HIS ‘removal’, who has proven NOT to be a predator for the last three decades, no matter what ugly liar Lewis and fantasist Vogelhut stated to influence proceedings in a nasty smear campaign? What is so ‘strange’ about Ms Geimer being at peace with Polanski? Speaks for herself AND Polanski? Would they rather she be consumed with hatred and live in misery forever, than be happy for Polanski to be left in peace too finally? Those who wish to beat this case to death are simply revictimising both her and Polanski. Polanski once said: “In general I despite the press tremendously for its inaccuracies, for its irresponsibilities and for its often even deliberate cruelty. And all this for lucrative purposes.” Indeed – he had been at the receiving end of such cruelty and lies countless times simply for who he was, or is. Though technically what Polanski did was unlawful no one debates, not even him and he even pleaded to it, however, if no one had called on the ‘law’ to ‘make’ it ‘unlawful’, Ms Geimer in fact did NOT want to happen but her sister egged on the mother, though it still had been ‘unlawful’ despite no one knowing of it except the two participants, NO ONE had actually come to any harm had they not called the cops. But the [in fact half-]sister had her own ‘agenda’ it seems by egging the mother on, rather than the boyfriend who didn’t seem too concerned she had slept with Polanski and was never part of the hearing to back up what they had said, and so it went ape shit from there.
By calling on the ‘law’, many were in fact harmed for a very long time because the ‘law’, (i.e., Rittenband & Co) ‘made’ their ‘own’ ‘law’ against the very letter of the law, perpetuated by even more corrupt Cooley & Co today. People these days speak as if ‘public morality’ has changed in all these years, no, here’s the hang-up, everybody was ‘shocked’ back then, too, namely when it emerged that the teenager was a physically mature young lady, taller than Polanski, had experiences with drugs, alcohol and sex, posing topless with her mother’s consent for a French man’s mag, and then the sex took on a context of recipe for disaster rather than rape. The difference is, today we have the sickening, self-impressed online displays of bogus morality in place of rational objectivity, while everyone then had agreed that no force was used by anyone’s account, and all her hints of ‘gave a little resistance’ then were empty excuses she today doesn’t even repeat as being that ‘important’. No, today she says, ‘he wasn’t forceful or hurting me’. Quite the opposite of, ‘I was afraid [of him]’. In May 1997, (a year before the ‘compensation’ was ‘settled’) Ms Geimer wrote in her first petition to Fidler who had handled the case since then before Espinoza took over: “I do not believe that it was Mr Polanski’s intention to frighten me or cause me harm.” Yet, she let him proceed to have sex with her, and later made it out as if she HAD been in fact ‘afraid’, ‘reluctant’, when she never was, since she entirely failed to explain ‘why’, and Polanski indeed never gave her that ‘cause’ or she had mentioned ‘how’ he had managed that. No, she was ‘made’ to play the victim purely for her age by the LAW. At least in the UK an accuser can demand the charged be dismissed, since the ‘state’, i.e., ‘People vs Defendant’, has no say over a case, but ‘Plaintiff vs Defendant’, i.e., court.
One really amazing take on the sodomy angle came to my attention the other day. Someone seriously came up with this: ‘that a child (‘child’? The doctor found her an ‘adult female’ I’m afraid, not prepubescent little kid) drugged with muscle relaxants and alcohol had no obvious rips or tears in her body does not show that she was not raped – it may however indicate a high probability that the offender’s penis was quite small and that he took his time’, that is the typical and misleading pseudo knowledge people want to spread rather than accept hard medical evidence that there was no anal intercourse. For one, alcohol dehydrates, makes ripping even easier. Quaalude is not a muscle relaxant as in ‘opening up’ like a gaping hole to make rear entry easier, (only amyl nitrate relaxes the sphincter to some degree and that only if inhaled continuously, which renders you seriously dizzy very soon) and certainly not from a third of the drug she said she took. Otherwise, what about all those who took Quaalude, did they suddenly get ‘incontinent’ and needed diapers because their ‘sphincter muscle control’ ‘failed? I don’t think so. I took it to get into the mood, and I had no such problems. And ‘small penis’? Sure, brilliant idea. Let’s ask Kinski or his wife how ‘small’ he is just because he’s of short stature. Wow, what logic. However big or small an erect/engorged penis, YOU STILL NEED LUBE FOR ANAL SEX for the REPEAT ACTION of the thrusting. Hence, leave bruises and tiny tears, or the least visible soreness. She was examined a mere four hours afterwards, and NOTHING showed. Not even if vaginal intercourse had taken place. And, most importantly, if ‘he took his time’ rapists hardly entertain, that most certainly is NOT rape but sex she could have aborted at any given time, no matter her age. But she did not. And, anal penetration will still show under the fine ‘microscope’ that is called sigmoidoscope used to reveal the slightest ‘action’ magnified x whatever.
Her ever-present lawyer Silver said that it technically was ‘rape’, as in statutory rape the UK has not either, since she was a minor who could not legally consent, had claimed to have been intoxicated and had that part Quaalude even if she took it all on her own free volition, though neither could ever be proven by any blood tests or witnesses. Regrettably this gives the public the wrong impression that it was ‘actual rape’, since Silver conveniently forgets to mention THAT exactly could never be proven because there was no trial to corroborate any of it. Or rather that what they had on evidence already pointed to simple unlawful sexual intercourse. Besides, neither of them can continue claiming [her] ‘intoxication’ since alcohol plying was never an indictment count. The Grand Jury obviously didn’t quite believe her story of having been ‘pretty drunk’ not to ‘resist’ Polanski’s advance, and her lawyer is basing his remark on [her still] unproven claims that could not be substantiated even back in 1977. It perpetuates the myth that she was incapable of ‘consent’ from that angle, rather than just say that even if she had not been intoxicated or had that piece of Quaalude, it still had been unlawful sex, to which Polanski pleaded at no evidence to prove any of the other counts. When King had asked her in the 2003 interview if any physical signs were ‘consistent with rape’, she falsely replied, ‘must have’, when the medical evidence had proven the exact opposite to the Grand Jury already, hence plea deal. Nothing of her behaviour denotes genuine rape victim however you view her, however you view that hard evidence. She’s too inconsistent, too conflictual, too ‘forgiving’, and one would think with all the misconduct on Wells’, Rittenband’s and Cooley’s behalf, she as the ‘victim’ wouldn’t care about what was done to Polanski, just so long as it was done over and over and over, she in fact wants stopped.
On the other hand, people like to attribute too much power to talk shows like the Larry King Show hardly anyone knows outside the US. Silver has certainly not undone any efforts to prove this was nothing but unlawful sex as awkward and misleading his comment was. Though the Larry King Show is rather popular, it is not a news show to take him serious; it is a celebrity gab show and it’s his job to ‘defend’ his ‘client’. People go off on such tangents, make whatever unqualified comments about him or Ms Geimer’s ‘forgiveness’ and is just part of the shallow media game to feed people what they want: juicy sex scandals and half-truths gossip to spice up their boring lives. What will be remembered from this show is that Ms Geimer reaffirmed that Polanski should be free, the charges be dismissed, that she is happy that he was not extradited and that Polanski had not been rough with her, ‘raped’ her in the actual sense, only in the legal term he took responsibility for by pleading to it. If Silver had said it was not rape, he would have been labelled as a rape enabler, like everyone who defends Polanski is called a rape apologist. Stupidity comes to mind to even think that. As for these pathetic feminists who still clamour for Polanski’s head, their [in general] increasingly untenable position remains the same, they don’t care what the so-called ‘victim’ says and they continue to believe it was actual rape. Let them – let them be blind to the fact that she in fact is apologising to Polanski because it was not rape – in a very indirect and symbolic way, and for her hasty mother to have ignored her not to call the cops. Whatever Polanski has said in his defence over the years, and apologised often enough, to her, he is certainly not required to do so to the vindictive public till his dying day who still believe what they want even if hard evidence is presented to the opposite.
Of course she can play the eternal, ‘well-meaning victim’ because of that one day and as long as it suits her, providing Polanski is a fugitive till his dying day, since he has no voice in correcting her even legally unless she’s finally put on the stand to be cross-examined she of course wants to avoid at all costs. Only once did Polanski speak his side, (other than in his own testimony given in 1977 as part of the probation report not corroborating her side, and in some old interviews) in his autobiography hardly anyone knows or cites painting an entirely different picture, which in turn comports with the long-agreed on evidence, NOT her never-proven claims of: ‘little drunkenness’, ‘little fear’, ‘little reluctance’, ‘little resistance’. When King asked her if there was someone else in the house, she only mentioned the caretaker [who let them in], utterly omitting that she was introduced to Huston, who she had claimed had interrupted Polanski while sodomising her, twice. Had she simply conceded to the Grand Jury that it was plain sex and not invented the ‘interrupted’ [double] sodomy (Huston and Polanski did not corroborate let alone the doctor who knew how forced anal intercourse would look like), and phrased it ‘he gave me’ the champagne and that bit of Quaalude angle to make it into something ‘else’, she still had not faced any retributions legally in any case for her age. But, Polanski would have been spared the more serious counts people still believe are fact, just because they opted for the plea instead of a trial to spare her humiliation from perjury, her mother from perverting the course of justice by repeating that her daughter had ‘signalled’ her that ‘she didn’t like him’ while on the phone, when in fact she told her she was alright, and, her sister for putting words into her mouth by saying she told Polanski ‘no, let me go’ while towelling her dry.
I highly doubt Polanski was that blind not to take her apparent ‘hints’ to let her be, or deaf not to hear her say what she claimed she had said to him. He had a few dozen women before her, and then suddenly fails to read HER ‘signs’ of ‘reluctance’? Not likely. She mentioned that in the car ride home Polanski asked her if she was ok, which shows concern for her well-being most people would deny him, while in her testimony she had not mention that he had asked her that on their way back home but in fact in the TV room after her rest where she claimed she was not feeling ok, that she wanted to go home. When Polanski in contrast had said she replied yes she was ok, yet, when King asked her if Polanski had been rough with her, she said no without hesitance. So, unless she mixed up where Polanski had asked her if she was ok, and would in fact back him up that he had, why exactly did she say before she was ‘afraid’ of him? Besides, in the 2003 interview she told him they had hardy talked while in the car, in contrast to what Polanski had stated and that she was very chatty. King asked her why she was so forgiving of him, and she said that she’s not a ‘particularly forgiving’ person, but that: “He [Polanski] was easy to forgive… there’re other people I don’t forgive as much.” Doesn’t that sound more like saying, ‘sorry for the fact I cried rape because ‘no one told me how to handle a situation like that, and it all went over my head’, as she put it? She knows perfectly well it wasn’t rape, since she also said once, ‘he wasn’t forceful’, ‘he wasn’t hurting me’, ‘he wasn’t mean’. Again, how then could she have felt ‘a little scared’ of him? Her faint ‘protestations’ of ‘I was a little intoxicated’ and just let it all happen angle are wearing thin, the twenty-one strong Grand Jury panel didn’t quite go for or they had charged Polanski with alcohol plying. Someone said she sounded more like having felt flattered that, ‘he’, the ‘famous director’ wanted, ‘her’, the ‘aspiring actress’. Hence her words that she didn’t quite know what to do.
She said she felt overwhelmed at his giving her directions how to pose for him, thought she didn’t do too well - but then again, she wasn’t a professional ‘model’, despite the fact that she had done TV commercials like her mother, who was a small-time actress and said she was very precocious. And, apparently had allowed her to go off the previous year with another ‘older photographer’ who took another set of very provocative photos of her when even younger. One of the more demure photos we all know, is from 1976 and shown everywhere when it comes to the old case, depicting her in b/w holding some books and looking seductively over her shoulder. So, how come ‘he’ never was dragged into court for the same type of photos they all suddenly were so shocked about in Polanski’s case ‘only’? Polanski in fact said in his autobiography the exact opposite of what she told King, and that she had posed with ‘professional aplomb’. How can two people see it so differently? When he noticed a love bite on her neck she said was from her boyfriend, he made sure it wouldn’t show in the pictures. Funny how Ms Geimer never mentioned any of that and that she in fact felt not ‘uncomfortable’ or Polanski had sensed it as the professional HE was. Now, in 2003 King had asked Silver: “She [her mother] thought a girlfriend went with her?” and Silver replied: “That’s correct.” And when King queried: “How did he [Polanski] stop the girlfriend from going?” Ms Geimer answered: “He [Polanski] said, ‘No, I don’t think that’s a good idea’, outside by the car after my mom went inside,” when in fact, today she said that her mother wanted to come along, and the ‘girlfriend’ Polanski had only met on their ‘first’ shoot, was in fact nowhere near his car when they left for the Nicholson shoot. Polanski never mentioned this girlfriend was there that day, only that he was late and they had to rush.
Ms Geimer added that her girlfriend left and her mother didn’t realise she was alone with Polanski, when in Gailey’s very own testimony she had stated that she had asked Polanski only once if she could come along on that first shoot weeks earlier to take shots of them both together and therefore did not ask again to come along for the second/third shoot, and, was in fact gathering her clothes for them to rush off at no protestations to come along. So, who’s exactly lying? Silver or Ms Geimer? Or both? She had already lied in the 2003 King interview in regards to how Polanski ‘chose’ her, ‘from a photo of her he must have seen’, when in fact her sister’s boyfriend had asked him to photograph her after Polanski had told him of the 1976 Vogue/Kinski shoot/success. She said that it was a ‘pretence’ to take the photos for Vogue Hommes ‘to get to know her’, while here she in fact says how it really came about and even mentioned Kinski since he had shown them the magazine. Then we have another curiously conflicting take of her saying that her sister heard her telling her boyfriend ‘on the phone’ what happened, when in her testimony Ms Geimer said she had only told him after he had arrived at their home. Plus, the sister never said anything about her calling him on the phone, but, that she had called Polanski’s friend, i.e., her own boyfriend because of the nude shots. While in the 2003 King interview Ms Geimer had said that she had told her boyfriend the sex was ‘forced’, in her original testimony she did not tell him it was and the boyfriend did not urge her to call the cops, but the ‘sister’, while later she again proclaimed Polanski had not been ‘forceful’ or hurt her in any form. That 1997 interview alone has so many inconsistencies in regards to her original testimony and her later interviews, and the later her ‘recollections’, the more they in fact sound like what Polanski had said.
When King asked somewhat surprised for the benefit of the audience: “You had been drinking champagne with ‘thirteen’?” She replied: “Yes, yes I did, you know, it was 1977…” pointing to the fact so many people of today miss, and that sex, drugs and booze was normal for teenagers to have (just like today, except no one advocates it in their hypocrisy). Before the insidious feminist revolution put an end to it all, sending innocent men into jail for sex, drugs and intoxicated lovers, but never the female. She might have omitted that she had been drunk even younger than that in the company of her own father she admitted to the Grand Jury, and told Polanski that she ‘liked champagne’, at no point did she allude to Polanski forcing her to drink the champagne and take the drug either then or today. But, when it comes to the sex, she becomes evasive and never speaks of the pain he would have caused her had he REALLY done what she accused him of. In fact, she also never said he had forced himself on her, and never mentioned Huston again having interrupted them, since it obviously never happened. But, in order to put the blame on him unfairly and squarely once the wheels of ‘justice’ had begun turning irrevocably against her wishes, and yet the family never wanted to see him punished for any of it but show mere ‘contrition’ that he had acted ‘inappropriately’, though the girl still ‘let him’ by her own admission, makes no sense however you dice it. Except, it all the more proves that it was consensual sex – albeit unlawful no one else however was sent down for at that time. In the interview she said with an almost flattered smile she was surprise that Polanski suddenly signalled that he wanted her; ‘her’, the young nobody; the ‘famous’ director wanted HER ‘sexually’ – and with an expression of not the slightest animosity she added: “[But] I didn’t know how to handle it.”
Maybe. But that’s what she puts forth is why she simply ‘acquiesced’, ‘let him get it over with’, like so many young women do without thinking, and the man is misled into believing it’s ‘consenting’, and then it’s far too late to stop the wheels of injustice grinding them down mercilessly till their last bone of a fair defence is dust. Especially in the sex-repressed, feminism perverted US. Had she really said ‘no’ Polanski had let her be, guaranteed. He had no need to drug her into submission, the champagne was used for posing, he had no need to force himself on that particular girl, and she let him do what he did: have sex with her. She did not give him the slightest signs of resistance, reluctance, ‘fear’ or intoxication not to refuse his intentions. No, he said she was very responsive, and with his many sexual encounters it is virtually impossible for him to have misread her. But, she resorted to saying later that she told him to keep away – rather than, ‘it’s alright’, Polanski recalls her having said after he asked her is she likes what he’s doing. She had said the same to him at their first meeting when the mother asked her to smell his aftershave, saying, “Isn’t it great?” and she answered after sniffing his cheek, “It’s alright.” Now, why would he make that up? Nobody, except the attorneys were interested then or now to see Polanski treated equal because he happened to be a ‘celebrity’. No, because of his great gift, because of his fame, it was seen as essential, even back then, that an example shall be made of him and so they did to this day under the corrupt cloak of ‘justice’. One very telling thing was, she also said that people had offered her money for interviews, but in order to say what ’they’ wanted her to say, i.e., speak out against Polanski in whichever form – she adamantly refused. She is her own agent and doesn’t need to say what ‘adults’ or ‘moralists’ want her to say today anymore, people of course simply don’t understand, unable to grasp that she doesn’t hate him.
Here’s a tale of juxtaposition, and how ones memory can let you down. Pretty much as it happened to a sad woman like Lewis, but in reverse. In Ms Geimer’s first 1997 interview she said: “He keeps refilling my glass. (No, the bottle was still half filled when they left according to Huston and Polanski.) Then he asks me to pose topless again and says he wants to take pictures in the Jacuzzi. I don’t have my bathing suit so I get in, in my underwear. (No, in her original testimony she stated that she went in nude after she had taken off her panties too. In another version she in fact HAD said she went in in her bathing suit, while Polanski said she was nude.) He takes pictures, then he gets in naked. (Remember? In the 2003 King interview she said he had his shorts on, after she had stated in her original testimony that he had joined her naked, while Polanski said he only went into the cooler pool.) I get out, grab a towel. That’s when he takes out the Quaaludes and asks me if I’ve ever had one. I lie and say yes. I take one-third. (No, in her original testimony she said they had found it in the bathroom just like Polanski had stated, that he asked her if it is Quaalude she affirmed, and that she had taken it before.) He takes what’s left and tells me to lie down for a minute. (No, she stated in her testimony that she had taken the Quaalude long before they went into the TV room to lie down there, after taking the pictures.) I know he wants to have sex and he is not taking no for an answer. (That’s what ‘she’ claimed, when Polanski in fact never heard her say ‘no’ or that she gave him any ‘resistance’.) I’m intoxicated and afraid and don’t know what to do, so I just let it happen. (Always an indefensible accusation to say to be rendered incapable of resistance, while Polanski had no such impressions.)
Then Anjelica Huston knocked on the door. I assume she asked him, “What are you doing in my room?” (No, it was the TV room HE occupied when he was in LA, and in her original testimony she stated Huston asked through the door crack: “Roman, are you in there?” And he went, “Yes. I just got out of the Jacuzzi and I’m getting dressed.” (So, why these more than curious contradictions? While Polanski only spoke with Huston after the sex?) I started to get dressed, but Polanski came back and said, “Lay back down,” and he took off my underwear. (No, she never said that he had ‘ordered’ her like that in her original testimony in any form.) He had been interrupted, so he finished—briefly—then went back to talk to her. (Sorry, ‘finished briefly’? ‘Double anal rape’ is not ‘finishing briefly’ and she’d not ever let Huston go after he had just ‘taken’ her against her will once already, and, of course Polanski and Huston never said she had interrupted them. In fact, in Ms Geimer’s original statement she claimed he ‘sat her back down again and then started to have [anal] intercourse with her again and then just stopped’, and when asked ‘if she believed that he climaxed in her anus’, she replied yes. Yet, did not say ‘he raped me again’, and, Polanski said he had climaxed outside her.) I got dressed and went out to the car and started to cry. (Which of course no one saw.) He took me home and said, “Don’t tell your mom what happened.” (Which Polanski denied to have told her, or that it’s ‘their secret’.) After Ms Geimer had testified she had a bowel movement right after she got home, Polanski would have NO doubt hit on that brown matter and caused her highly unpleasant friction and painful damage after the ‘double sodomy’ already. And yet, to this day she not ONCE said anything untoward any ‘pain’ as she should have.
People keep bringing these panties into the foreground being the reason for the plea deal, and Ms Geimer’s lawyer Silver likes to accredit them to having been the cause even in Zenovich’s documentary ‘Wanted and Desired’. Not so, it’s misleading, since it was on the pressure of the mother after it became clear there was no rape/sodomy and that she had made a terrible mistake to call the cops against Ms Geimer’s wishes, hence no demands for prison time. Ms Geimer herself said that she never got over that grave mistake, and her mother called it a ‘stupid mistake’. That’s quite some insult considering what terrible consequences it had for Polanski. The plea bargain-to-be-no-bargain at all was struck five months later for reasons other than the ‘panties’. They had been analysed March 14th, brought before the Grand Jury hearing March 24th, and ruled inadmissible because the cops had not received them ‘off her body’ directly but from her ‘hands’ when fetching them from her bedroom, utterly contaminated ‘evidence’, since securing the chain of custody was completely corrupted. Rittenband rightfully disallowed them given that they could have been anyone’s panties, and ‘semen evidence’ means nothing in itself. Since Ms Geimer changed when she got home by her own admission, the clothes she wore at the hospital for Larson to check after he had examined her, were obviously not the same. But, because she had changed rather than secured ‘evidence’ of intercourse, her [‘rape’/sodomy] claims are even less believable since she knew not to shower or douche after a ‘rape’, and of course there was no semen found inside and on her body either where she said Polanski had deposited it. Science doesn’t lie, only people who could misuse it. The lab technician Lee Mann presenting his evidence at the Grand Jury could not even fully determine semen stains on the panties (and none on the blue dress she apparently had worn that day she had also given to the cops), after he conducted a test on the crotch area of her underwear in an effort to obtain spermatozoa, which proved rather unsuccessful. Here’re some excerpts from his testimony.
Question: Did you determine whether semen was present on the panties? Answer. I determined that the test, the acid phosphatase test was positive indicating the presence of semen on the panties. However, I could not confirm the presence of semen by obtaining spermatozoa from the garment stain (on the panties). Q. What do you mean by that? A. Well, if I got a positive chemical test, I have a very strong indication that there is semen in the stain. I will then cut out a piece of the garment and try to extract it to obtain spermatozoa. Extract it with distilled water, place it on the microscope slide, evaporate it and then search for spermatozoa. I could not find any spermatozoa. (The fertilising sperm in semen/ejaculate.) Q. Could you tell when the semen was secreted? A. No. Q. Could you determine who secreted the semen? A. No. Q. Based upon your test and analysis of the panties, do you have an opinion as to whether there was a presence of semen? A. Well, the test strongly indicates semen. It can’t be confirmed in that I couldn’t find spermatozoa. Q. Can you give a probability as to the existence of the semen on the panties based upon your tests? A. Oh, it is probably better than 90 percent sure that it is semen. Q. How long will sperm live? A. Live or… Q. Exist. A. They will exist indefinitely if conditions are proper. If they are dry conditions they could last indefinitely either on a microscope slide or in a garment. Q. How long are they detectable on slides? A. Indefinitely. Q. Do you know how long you can detect sperm after an act of sexual intercourse, if it existed? A. Well, up to 12 hours. After 12 hours you would not expect to find sperm present in a vaginal swabbing, although it is possible. Q. In this case did you also receive some slides, some vaginal slides and anus slides? A. I did. Q. Did you also receive an item listed as vaginal washing? A. Yes. Q. Did you examine those slides and washings for spermatozoa? A. I did. Q. What was your finding? A. These items were negative or tested negative for semen.
He also said that the ‘stain’ was of no ‘female’ specific origin, i.e., vaginal fluids, [menstrual] blood etc. So, the panties ‘might’ have semen stains but no spermatozoa, and the (rape kit) test slides showed neither of them. So, unless a modern-day DNA test is done on the stain, the one who left it will remain anonymous for all eternity. Since Polanski is not interfile or had a vasectomy to produce no sperm, it can’t be his. Now, Ms Geimer had claimed that she had felt Polanski’s ejaculate all over her back, inside her anus and in said panties when she put them back on. But, she never said she had cleaned herself up (which you might expect after such a mess), had no douche, shower, enema you name it – and within four hours of the sex NOTHING was found in semen/ejaculate form on or inside her, except these panties inside the crotch/gusset, where you would not expect any ejaculate if it came from the anus or back, but the vagina only leaking from it, otherwise the stain/s had been on the back. The technician could not say how old the stain was, so it could well have been someone else’s semen from days before. Or not the same panties. She claimed she had a bowel movement, but the microscopic sigmoidoscope investigation would still have detected traces of any ejaculate. Meaning, he did not ejaculate ‘all over her’ as she put it, but outside of her as he said after vaginal intercourse only. The semen [stains] could be anyone’s, and there’s no logic in sodomising anyone to avoid pregnancy and then still withdraw to ejaculate outside, but to resort to coitus interuptus. The main thing that’s utterly off in the sequence of events is the asthma/in-out Jacuzzi vapours controversy, where her underwear was on or off, if Polanski was in the Jacuzzi or [rather] not, that TV room/double sodomy part, or even from where he got the Quaalude. She has several different versions of the events in exactly the key areas where Polanski contradicts her – otherwise they match his course of events.
As we know, she said that she’d never told her mother, which makes it a NO rape scenario at heart. In fact, had she not spoken about the sex at all, the most they would have done was perhaps tell Polanski not to use the topless pictures, or come back to take more. If not, we all know what then had happened: she’d ended up in that Vogue Hommes spread, other glossy magazines with a brilliant career of acting ahead. That’s why she was so pissed off that the mother had called the cops. Hollywood mom destroyed her career because of a jealous half-sister. Or some topless pictures. Or some convoluted tale of sex and drugs and champagne. According to the casting director on Chinatown, he said, “I know from my personal experience that Gailey was ambitious for the girl and only too happy to meet someone like Polanski. It’s absurd to say he was a predator who single-handedly forced himself on the family” Indeed, since his friend had asked him to look at her daughter – not vice versa. What most people don’t realise is that Polanski was always very youthful and ‘seductive’, for his natural charm and rather feminine stature no woman could resist. The first time he felt anything erotic untoward Ms Geimer according to his autobiography, was when she got into the Jacuzzi, but he kept snapping her, wanted to relax her, and only when they dried each other off did he think of ‘sex’. She could have simply left when it became ‘scary’, but, rather covers every scenario as to why she ‘would’ not with various explanations. As in, he was my only means to get back home, (when she could have called her mother again to pick her up – the same ploy Vogelhut used by saying she had no money to get home) or, I was ‘scared’, though she did not explain why and Polanski of course had no such impression. And, then I just surrendered because I had no idea how to handle the situation – or a man like Polanski. She never said he threatened her into anything, so why be ‘afraid’ of him in the first place? Some call/ed her double sodomy claims a literal fantasy, since hard evidence simply does not support it.
Now, in her late forties, Ms Geimer appeared cordial during the interview with King, an ‘actress in her own right’. At one point he asked her why she hadn’t written a book about her experience and she said it was ‘hard on her family’. I doubt that incident was ‘hard’ on anyone other than herself and her mother for a short time back then and most of all Polanski ever since, because they unlike him soon went underground on Hawaii and no one knew who she or her mother was or of the ‘case’. She lived there in happy oblivion till she revealed herself in 1997, and not even her niece had any idea of the ‘events’ until recently. A lot of the ‘turmoil’ people read into all this had occurred long before Polanski had entered their life, and he was left battered at the hands of a rather dysfunctional family, the destructive media and the despotic law. It would be ‘hard’ to write a book about her family background of lax views concerning underage sex, drugs and alcohol use, her mother’s frequently changing partners, that she was a not too talented bit-part actress or Moussa, who was to take Kinski under his wings, had taken her on too after Polanski had asked him to, and she’d likely gloss over the fact that her older half-sister was in rehab for Quaalude addiction. That her mother’s then boyfriend had a ‘lewd affair’ with her even the courts knew of would undoubtedly be omitted, and the lack of a birth father no doubt didn’t help. The fact that her current husband is twenty years older isn’t surprising, after she dropped out of school with sixteen, had a kid with eighteen, married the boy’s father to be divorced from him again by nineteen to remarry soon and have two more children. All that requires ‘money’ as said niece put it in a blog, (whose mother fell out with Ms Geimer, thinks her aunt has a screw loose, and that Polanski’s ‘payoff’ helped to get that nice big house on Hawaii, no matter it arrived two decades late/r). Not my words, hers.
For over three decades no one bothered with Polanski, so why the sudden interest in his case when he wasn’t considered a priority since 1978? Oh I forgot, the LA DA’s office was deeply ‘embarrassed’ by Zenovich’s film exposing all the misconducts, after Polanski had protested it for so long already, and then there was this handy UBS scandal to pawn him off. Cooley’s Les Miserable Javert-like demeanour is deeply repulsive, or that Wells, who even admitted that he lied ‘to look good on camera’. In fact, in the Zenovich documentary the very Oktoberfest photo he used to see Polanski end up inside Chino, is shown full-screen and clearly depicts the females as mature women and that Polanski does NOT have his arms around any of them. Wells’ highly inflammatory and derogatory ex parte rants about Polanski fuelled Rittenband into abusing the diagnostic study, and to this day, the retired DA has never been punished for it. He was also a buddy of Vannatter’s who’d loved to have seen Polanski strung up. Once Wells showed the cropped photo to Rittenband he went: “I took it to Rittenband because I figured it was something he ought to see. And what I told him was, I said, you know judge you’ve made so many mistakes – I think – in this case. Look? He’s giving you the finger. He’s flipping you off. And I said, haven’t you had enough of this? He said, ‘what? What? He’s not getting away with that’.” Wells played Rittenband. The interview he gave to Zenovich is in fact much longer, she only cut it down to a few minutes, and that alone shows what prejudiced slimeball he was, or still is. Only good thing is that he was not to be the prosecutor of the case as he had loved to, but Gunson, the ‘Mormon’, a man of rare honour and integrity who sided with Polanski’s team later and equally unsuccessfully tried to see this case finally closed. If I had any say at the LA DA’s office, I’d start examining Wells’ past caseloads. What else did he lie about? How many innocent people did HE put in jail because of his lies? And how do we know that he isn’t lying about lying, when even Cooley is lying?
The ‘lawful’ and rightful ‘presumption of innocence’ is hardcore scepticism, as is the rejection of someone’s ‘guilt’, who wasn’t ever sentenced and in fact found ‘guilty’ yet of what he pleaded to. While people expect not to be convicted without just cause, i.e., hard proof, instead, they use [this] ‘presumption’ as a licence to ‘turn’ [his] ‘innocence’ into ‘guilt’ without any hard evidence. In doing so, ‘they’ expect the rest of us to ‘believe’ ‘them’, without any proof of their (in lieu of Ms Geimer’s former) claims of his guilt, because ‘they’ ‘want’ him to be ‘guilty’. So now we (and the defendant, i.e., Polanski) are [also] required to present evidence of his innocence. Indeed, we now have to meet a far higher standard of ‘evidence’ than ‘they’ (or Polanski) ever did, despite the fact that all we’ve done is question ‘their’ unproven claims (Ms Geimer could not prove to begin with). This makes ‘us’ [too], who believe in his innocence, the ones ‘guilty until proven innocent’, not ‘them’ who in fact DO believe in her unproven claims. But, if ‘we’ have to prove our claims of his ‘innocence’, (in lieu of HIS own belief), so do THEY that he’s ‘guilty’. THEY HAVE NOT and never will be able to. And, they don’t get to excuse themselves by claiming their own ‘belief’ of HIS ‘guilty until proven innocent’, if THEY don’t have the ‘proof’ of his guilt to start with, but WE do of his innocence (in his place). So, do ‘you’ rather want to ‘believe’ in something ‘they’ cannot prove, or something others have proven already? Do you rather believe in all those wrongly repeated headlines of ‘drugged, raped and sodomised her’ as if it ever were ‘proven fact’, rather than engaged in unlawful sex which WAS proven fact? The majority of people instinctively gather that this kind of ‘trash journalism’ is basically worthless, but not too many want to dig deeper either to find out the wider truth, leaving the majority stuck in their drugged rape and sodomy fairyland. But there’s NO hard proof whatsoever that Polanski ever drugged, raped or sodomised anyone. No, the proof is he did NOT.
Having read more of the pro and contra comments about Ms Geimer’s King interview, some still think it was actual rape, saying she discusses the ‘horrific event’ and then explains that she doesn’t blame Polanski as much as she does the media for the way they treated her, when in fact, how and what she explains sounds the exact opposite of ‘horrific’, and represents exactly that kind of ignorance she talked about. I wonder if people really are that imbecilic to misread her statements or just plain braindead to believe in something that paradox, or something that was never proven. Her words alone mean nothing. Though King might be right by saying in their 2003 interview that ‘date rape’ was a new concept, date rape however is a feminist invented ‘clause’ to make self-intoxicated and self-administered drug sex, rape, just so to be absolved from all responsibilities after a drunken one-night stand. And, the myth of date rape drugs like GHB being rampantly used are just that, feminism propagated myth aided by scare stories no one corrects once they all turned out bogus claims. Like crying rape. The media is now [again] denouncing Polanski as a [sexual] monster, which he is most certainly not. He is a ‘monster’ that could only be spawned by a monstrous society that allowed monsters like Rittenband to create him, with a complicit woman who doesn’t correct her lawyer having cited her encounter with Polanski as ‘rape’, when he should have said unlawful sex, since ‘rape’ to most means forcible intercourse, which it is, ONLY. While, in the same breath, she declares that Polanski had not been rough with her, harmed her. Such conflicting delivery either confuses or confirms the public of Polanski’s actual ‘guilt’, depending on what they know about the case.
This sort of misleading duplicity and unchallenged demonisation to perpetuate Ms Geimer’s STILL uncorroborated side of events in certain areas, is sending a by now more than hunted man down the path of the most insane slander that sees no end. Love of the limelight, a fair amount of narcissism and self-deceit is a powerful thing for accusers. Having absolute power over a powerless man is a powerful feeling, no matter the law still has the greater. Having all the sympathy in the world as his ‘victim’ is a very potent intoxicant Quaalude could never match. Yet, not once did the man strike out against this perpetual onslaught of the mindless lynch mob based on long disproved allegations, other than through his in legal team, which his very own prosecutor had sided with, to no avail. An ever-prevailing man like Polanski, who trusted and listened to the law, followed its dictates to the letter only to get swindled by a corrupt man in black, had no reason to stay in America, which by all means had murdered his wife and unborn child, only to be accused of their butchery himself in a nasty media attack unheard of, irresponsibly pitching a ‘Satanism’ perspective that garnered the most shock value, regardless of the much more insidious facts. American journalism is unbelievably corrupt and highly biased propaganda, catering to the lowest common denominator of viewership. Facts are not merely perverted or exaggerated, they are simply turned upside down. Polanski had every reason to lash out at the downright cruel press attacks, the highly corrupt law driving the knife in even further, the twisted society that screwed him over and over. And yet, the endless pain they had inflicted on him could not kill him, STILL being highly respected as a human being and revered artist.
With dumb and self-serving people continuing to say things like, ‘child rapist Polanski is still on the lam for paedophilia’, this kind of never-ending idiocy gives them the opportunity to be more aggressive (and/or dumb) than they would allow themselves to be in person (or public), as the cowards (/idiots) they are, since there is a weaker sense of personal responsibility when their target cannot strike back. They don’t have to confront that someone they attack directly and can feel ‘big’. People, who believe that any kind of self-satisfying cyberbullying is an acceptable means of channelling their half-baked and uneducated opinions, often suffer from severe if wholly illusionary self-importance and mental immaturity with an antisocial element. Living in an oversexed media culture where over-the-top drama and easy-access sex and violence is pervasive, for someone who already has questionable judgement and no shred of objectivity or intellect, it only reinforces their idea that extreme slander and cruelty is acceptable. This kind of malignant cancer will never be uprooted; it can only grow into a giant black hole of indefensible lies search engines will forever expand. I wonder how much longer it will take for Ms Geimer to stop playing the victim, contradict herself, instead of owning up to her part and be seen as a truly empowered woman, who doesn’t need a lawyer to watch her every word. Some said she should have shut up in 1977 and enjoyed the fruits of her photoshoot labour, and some say she should shut up now. Silence after all, IS golden. But then again, she had never expected that her testimony would be available online one day – to expose her inconsistencies.
By exploiting and labelling Ms Geimer as the ‘Polanski victim’ despite no single scrap of evidence he had deliberately drugged, and then raped and sodomised her, much less an adjudication of Polanski’s guilt thereof, people keep rushing to a false judgment and believe her still unchallenged allegations to be factual. Had Polanski not been forced into the plea bargain purely for her age and other factors, and refused to admit he had intercourse with her, NOTHING in fact could have proven that he had, since Larson said to the Grand Jury after he performed both a standard pelvic examination taking specimens and washings and a rectal examination both visual and using the sigmoidoscope: “In the presence of a person who has had previous intercourse, unless intercourse is forced one wouldn’t expect to find the physical evidence.” Meaning, it wasn’t forcible intercourse. Asked: “When you say ‘physical evidence’, you mean the, haematomas, the lacerations…” he answered, “Evidence of damage to the vagina or the rectum.” When queried further: “Did your examination indicate that Samantha Gailey had previous sexual intercourse?” he replied, “Yes, it had.” Meaning, she was not a virgin anymore she had admitted to herself for the missing hymen, and when asked if he could tell how many times she had intercourse before, he said, “No.” Meaning, he could not even tell if she had intercourse that very evening at not the slightest damage. It is therefore disingenuous and unjustly misleading to insist that her sodomy claims are true, especially at her plenty words to the very opposite people get only confused over.
While the law thinks a ‘crime’ occurred, Ms Geimer’s outward declaration of passive assent never matched her disinclination to engage in the seduction game that led to the sex. She let him proceed every step of the way, she did not give him any signs to desist. Thus, Ms Geimer’s discussing her sexual encounter with Polanski on King’s shows, provides a typical example of what an expected victim protest would NOT be. No genuine rape victim says her attacker was not forceful, mean or hurting them, no genuine victim wishes their violator well for the future and that all charges be dropped. Technically that is passive recanting of her original accusations, but she cannot go further or be done for perjury. The legal system that betrayed them both is not designed to establish the truth; it is an adversarial system that abuses the truth. Truth is not found in the courtrooms and the irresponsible news sources that tell us what emerges from the courts are not telling the public the truth either. What is told to the public is often deliberate twisting of the truth. A lie was told and [most] everyone [still] thinks it is true, going on a verbal rampage of adding abuse to cause the accused further unjust injury. While Manson and his killer girls had a fair trial, even became cult in the obscenity that is fanatical following of warped fandom, Polanski was ousted over sex. A pariah from one day to the next.
He rightfully found it obscene that people wear t-shirts with Manson’s face playing his songs as if he had done nothing wrong, who had sodomised boys as a teen and raped some of his own ‘family’ members, yet Polanski had to pay for one evening with a teenager ever since and is unfairly called a rapist and/or paedophile. In 1997 Ms Geimer said: “The fallout was worse than what had happened that night. It was on the evening news every night. Reporters and photographers came to my school and put my picture in a European tabloid with the caption ‘Little Lolita’. They were all saying, ‘Poor Roman Polanski, entrapped by a 13-year-old temptress’. I had a good friend who came from a good Catholic family, and her father wouldn’t let her come to my house anymore. It was even worse for my mother because everyone was saying it was her fault. (It was.) Meanwhile, I just shut down and didn’t talk. I was this sweet 13-year-old girl, and then all of a sudden I turned into this pissed-off 14-year-old. I was mad at my attorney; I was mad at my mom. I never blamed her for what happened, but I was mad that she had called the police and that we had to go through this ordeal.” Though I highly doubt she never blamed her mother, since saying she was mad at her with her means just that and clearly shows that she had not wanted her to make it a ‘rape story’, her ‘ordeal’ was not half as traumatising as what Polanski had to endure since, when he went from nice chum to vile scum at the speed of lightning.
So, being called a Lolita might be unpleasant, though not half as unpleasant as being dubbed a whore, but to lose everything and be unjustly labelled a rapist and/or paedophile the next day for the rest of his life is infinitely worse. Any lesser man had killed himself. Especially after Polanski was forced to flee and faced added hardship, till he got himself back on track with Tess Sharon had wanted him to make into a film – and so he did at great acclaim. Film literally kept him alive on so many occasions from childhood on. So, if Ms Geimer thought it was ’hard’ for her, she has no concept of what Polanski has suffered, and that long before she was born. A murderer was treated with more respect than someone who had slept with a teenager. Polanski had to be put in protective custody to be kept away from hardcore convicts at the same facility where Manson was held, while by then Ms Geimer was long forgotten by the press and could go underground at her father’s place. Though she protests that people had come to her school to take pictures of her, she was heard saying that she will be in the movies with and because of Polanski having taken pictures of her, to be shown in glossy magazines, which by all means was correct and had been her future – had her mother listened to her. Though her name was made public only later, everyone knew it was her, for the pictures the Euro press took and published of her. Clearly showing off her very high physical maturity level Polanski fell for, not her ‘age’.
Polanski is what’s called a situational offender, acting out of character for a particular set of circumstances and string of events leading up to the sex that day – the romantic elements of champagne, taking pictures of a pretty girl, the hot tub she posed in, and several other crucial factors many don’t see. There were emotional, psychological and physical factors at work that usually don’t end up as they did, simply for her age. He wasn’t interested in her sexually before that particular moment. That’s why the probation report cited a severe culture clash, and his naiveté over underage sex to be acceptable in the US, or topless photos taken for a French magazine. We also may not forget that ever since Tate’s murder, his deepening depression had taken on a different dimension that led him into the act of seeking sex with a [too] young girl. Had he had professional counselling in 1969 as the prison psychiatrists had said he desperately needed long before he talked to them, he’d not lost himself into deeper depression and sex to end up with her in the first place. But, in 1969 there was no support for victims of violent crimes, and he clearly was and still is suffering from what is called survivors guilt. He spoke of his eternal guilt in his autobiography not only in reference to his survival of the war and ghetto years, but over the brutal loss of Sharon, that he wasn’t there to protect and save her. That he was attacked by the malicious press didn’t help any healing process either.
The remarkable thing is that he had changed his mind about what happened in 1977 people of course have no idea about. That according to his friend Nicholson, who said in 2004 in a Playboy interview: “People have to remember that the offence for which he was convicted isn’t even a crime in his own country. (France.) Having sex with a minor, since it’s not underage where he comes from. He always maintained that he didn’t feel he did anything wrong. The girl has also said that she doesn’t feel he did anything particularly wrong. (Indeed, or the adult woman had not repeatedly pleaded later to dismiss all charges.) But the minute he had children, Roman changed his mind. He decided he did in fact do something wrong. (Legally considered for her age, and one might think that is when he wrote her that ‘note’ she spoke of, though, had she really said ‘no’, he had let her be.) As an honest man, he admitted that, though he didn’t have to. (That was expressed already in 1994 in the very amiable interview with Diane Sawyer available on YouTube, though he was still very defensive about the puritanical stance about teenage sex in the sex-repressed US being senselessly punished.) He’s a wonderful guy and a great artist. There aren’t that many world-class movie directors, and he’s one of them. Having children apparently changed him, though. It does change things.” Indeed – except no one would allow him to have changed. Let alone today in this über puritanical society that now sends men for sex into prison for life at NO defence chances.
Coming back to Polanski’s much anticipated adaptation of Reza’s dark comedy stage play God of Carnage, finally the second male lead role was finalised with John C. Reilly joining the film as the final piece of the main cast. Reilly will be coupled with Foster and not Matt Dillon as some had reported, good, he struck me as too young and out of place to handle a high-octane play like that. And as I said, he wasn’t quite cast yet, and putting him in what amounts to a pressure cooker of a verbal feast with the highly talented cast and a very demanding Polanski seems like a recipe for something really delicious. Let’s see how Reilly will be doing with his versatility spanning drama, comedy and even musicals. The drama is high in its isolated, dialogue-driven story as each pair of parents attacks the other’s parenting skills before turning on each other about problems in their own marriages. The tension really mounts when these parents actually end up getting along far worse than their bickering kids did. Maybe one of the boys will be played by his own son, Elvis, since his daughter appeared in his Ghost [Writer]. Polanski begins shooting in Paris at the beginning of 2011, so we’ll likely see the film show up on the festival circuit, and even in theatres, later in the same year.
This is quite an assembly of great talent for a drama that will surely garner a lot of attention when awards season comes around next year at undoubtedly high acclaim. By the time t/his film will be finished, the renewed injury done to him will have healed, and the grass grown back over the widening crater of injustice that his rearrest and unlawful detention had caused. And who knows, maybe Ms Geimer might appear at the premier in LA like she did for Wanted and Desired. That would dumbstruck all his petty little haters – and piss off Cooley & Co immensely, who keep saying that she has no ‘rights’ to demand the charges be dropped, while doing so in other much more serious cases and she certainly HAS ‘right’s. Just not in ‘his’ court, making another exception in this case. Of course we know why Cooley doesn’t want to dismiss the case, for one they’d need to address all the misconduct Cooley has committed himself, and to prevent Polanski from suing anyone who even misspelled his name over the last three decades. With Cooley still in the running for AG, it looks like his opponent Kamala Harris can pull big donors like Ron Meyer, the president of Universal Studios, and some Cooley loyalists have muttered that this is payback for Cooley’s dogged pursuit of Polanski. But the organised American film industry support for Polanski is centered in New York rather than in Tinseltown, and Hollywood was strongly in Harris’ camp before Cooley declared his candidacy at any rate. Never mess with powerful Hollywood supporters who know what really happened. No rape in any form.
Now that Foster has joined Polanski’s latest film endeavour, it’s not enough to criticise her for standing by a Hollywood pariah (Gibson), but people need to ‘rethink’ suddenly who she is as a ‘human being’ in an attempt to reshape her entire legacy as an artist, and set out to ‘punish’ and make an example of Foster’s apostasy regarding Gibson and Polanski. Their ever-self-righteous bigotry message is clear: stay on the Artistic Thought-Plantation or we will outcast you too. The public that is, not ‘Hollywood’. Human beings and sexuality are extremely complex and there are too many complexities to life that can upset [their irrational] ‘emotions’ and rigid patterns of ‘moral dogma’, with ill-informed people finding it ‘disgusting’ that these women, Foster and Winslet, would commit all their credibility on ‘women’s issues’ by working with Polanski. They think, they ‘condone’ the immoral behaviour they believe Polanski is guilty of, that they are no better than the one who they are oh so sure of committed an act of rape, yet have ZERO proof of it. But that doesn’t matter, anyone dare speak thoughts obviously outside of their personal jurisdiction and their sanctimonious blather will be labelled ‘disgusting’, a rape apologist. Polanski’s work can be transcendent and at the very forefront of the medium’s leading edge – perfection – one can worshipful his gifts, not the man himself. Culture and the Arts are as air and water to the viability of our society. Great art keeps all of us alive as a society, not hypocritical little haters and [their] vindictive laws.
Polanski isn’t just another film director, he truly is a pioneeering artist, and given the fact of Polanski’s immense contribution to culture over the past several decades, a mature society needs to balance what is best overall, not for the small-minded little haters. What is lost if a genius is locked away and cannot create? Everything – or we’d not have ANY art. The value of great art to all of mankind is paramount, and so is Polanski’s and Ms Geimer’s entitlement to final resolution. Does she feel that Polanski owes her restitution, or does she strongly feel he needs to be punished? No, no and no again, or else she’d not petitioned him to be freed from this endless pursuit. People think Polanski owes ‘society’ in regards to the ‘rape’. Do productive geniuses deserve special consideration? Of course they do, since all his petty little haters have little positive to contribute but damaging hatred. That’s what at stake here, not their all-consuming little egos. The ‘rape’ has achieved mythical status by now, and this somehow gives everyone licence to pass their self-satisfying little judgements on Polanski. It is a fact that teenagers are having sex all the time, and all over the world. Millions of teenagers, globally, are freely engaging in sex right now, and if the law would in fact allow them to have sex when of pubertal age I guarantee you, NO one would find it ‘immoral’ or a ‘power differential’ issue suddenly anymore as the hypocrites they are. If I magically could know for a FACT that Polanski forcibly had sex with a weeping girl I would want him in a jail cell right now. That is the sort of thing I’d chose to label ‘disgusting’, not someone who stands by her beleaguered friend and a director who slept with a teenager over three decades ago. I for one know it wasn’t rape of any kind, end of debate.
A rather curious trend I have come across over the last weeks is that some Far Eastern bloggers or even major news articles have apparently only ‘now’ picked up on the arrest and extradition request or even case, and literally lag a year behind, since they all state that Polanski is in prison ‘right now’ after he was arrested in ‘September this year’. Not ‘LAST’ year, and have all but missed that he was released already months back THIS YEAR, after it became clear that he’s done his time twice now and should never have been rearrested – how lame is that? How about checking your sources, and the actual ‘year’. Another more than eye-rolling thing I noticed is that people who reviewed The Ghost [Writer] suddenly ask, how Polanski in fact could film it in the US, and I stop right there, since it’s more than dim-witted to even ask that. Hello? Who needs ‘Hollywood’ or the ‘US’? Ever heard of a ‘studio/backlot’ where you can magically create anything you need? Including having genuine US cars and whatnot else studios regularly hire or simply build, or even use European cars they drive in America and simply stick a real or custom-made US number plate on it? Or how about other locations that stand in for US shores? Or, better still, use ‘CGI’? Guess that’s just too taxing to even think of or at least look at the special features on the DVD explaining things, or they in fact had seen where and how exactly the film was made. As in, Germany, a Hollywood-rivalling German film studio and a few fancy supercomputers. Looks like Polanski’s unerring eye for details and his meticulous drive for perfection leaves no room to make it look other than authentic to a perfect t and fool people into such [one-dimensional] questions. That’s what makes him a genius in his field.
Now, with Polanski’s God of Carnage, starring Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz and John C. Reilly, having closed sales for much of Europe, Wild Bunch will handle theatrical distribution in France and has also bought UK and Scandinavian rights. Mediaset-owned Medusa has rights to Italy, Lusomundo has taken Portugal, Village Roadshow has Greece, SPI has Eastern Europe, Ascot Elite has Switzerland and Media Intl. Pics has the Middle East. Written by Polanski and French playwright Reza, Carnage is produced by Said Bensaid’s SBS Prods., which is selling it worldwide outside the US. The film is co-produced by German giant Berlin’s Constantin Film, which will distribute in Germany. The US is repped by Jeff Berg at ICM. Carnage is the first movie from Bensaid’s SBS Prods. His former SBS Films was owned by UGC, for whom he produced Reza’s feature helming debut, Chicas, which co-starred Polanski’s wife, Emmanuelle. Outside this highly promising plot, which showcases two sets of parents who meet to discuss a playground fight between their sons until the meeting degenerates into conflict, criticism, racism and misogyny, people keep bringing up the same BS in regards to Polanski wherever someone left an update on the film, with their usual stupid comments. That he’s basically a self-confessed serial paedophile rapist predator foremost – dream on folks – and that people will not want to watch Carnage or any of his other crappy films – speak for yourselves, dumb US haters. Go and rage another war somewhere and keep your dirty little fingers off the computer keyboards to assassinate others in cyberspace.
Having noticed another set of two factions online, of the anti and pro-Polanski kind, the first breaks it down into highly over-simplistic shallowness and usual one-dimensional dehumanisation, as in: Polanski is a Holocaust survivor who should have been gassed along with his mother, had a wife who was killed by some hippies for making ‘satanic movies’ and should have been butchered alongside her, then drugged and raped a child and should have been raped and killed in prison, oh yeah, and he made a few forgettable films that should be boycotted. Classy summary indeed, for the real classy-minded little haters that have zero ideas who or what they’re talking about. As counterbalance we have the more humanistic intelligentsia, who say: Polanski is a highly acclaimed filmmaker and Holocaust survivor who escaped Nazi destruction as a child, where he developed his love of cinema to compensate for the harsh reality, had a beautiful wife who was murdered alongside their unborn baby and friends by some hippie dropouts, was accused of murdering them himself and attacked by the monstrous media, then escaped some megalomaniac lawmaker after unlawful sex with a minor, was accused of rape when he fled his corrupt court having done his time and the judge wanted to send him back to prison against all counsel, before he then was made another nasty example of by the abusive law of today after his rearrest, faced more vicious media attacks and public lynching before he was released by a country that had betrayed him in the first place over money. All for who he was, or still is: a well-respected genius artist who had suffered many tragedies in his life where only his love of film, his loyal friends and family, countless colleagues and fans kept him alive with well-deserved dignity and support.
Such are the two current opinion poles of the endless Polanski saga – all over brutal murders, ‘satanic films’, sex with a teenager over three decades ago and the vindictive law that exiled him vowing to shadow him till his dying day as extra special treatment, despite calls to stop this mindless persecution. But, under the self-righteous factions of so-called ‘laws’ and ‘morality’, sexual bigotry, sexual policing, sexual paranoia having utterly corrupted this case and our society per se, it has long become a dominant and highly destructive reality in our everyday life and its expanding shadow has done untold damage. And, as in all authoritarian states and petty little hypocrites that run them, the senseless persecution of people like Polanski most often occurs behind corrupt courtroom doors to be rationalised under the guise of this being a ‘state matter’, or of course is debated with sick/ening falsehoods and diatribes in the sleazy tabloids online to publicly destroy someone like him with perverse relish in a real civilised form of electronic [character] assassination. See. See Rittenband/Wells/Walgren/Cooley on the ‘state’ side, helped by Allred/Lewis/Vogelhut and their own co-conspirators on the ‘society’ side, having tried to destroy Polanski in various ways after the Nazis failed, the Polish Communists failed, the Manson Family failed, the corrupt law failed and then his backstabbing ex-lovers also failed. But, it will never happen, since for one the now autonomous woman at the centre of this entire sex scandal drama that has polarised and politicised this case ad infinitum and ad nauseum in the public eye is on his side since decades now, who wants him be left in peace in contrast and many flock to his side to be in his films. But, who listens to any ‘victims’ these days, when it doesn’t suit the petty little moralists and petty little lawmakers incited by petty little feminist dogmas and their equally twisted picture they have of her as well.
While some less than intelligent people think that Polanski should be foremost remembered for being a rapist and/or paedophile he certainly is not, rather than an outstanding artist he certainly is (or these one-dimensionally brained idiots in fact wouldn’t even know about him), long before he became ugly tabloid fodder, long before he directed such remarkable psychological features as Knife in the Water in 1962 and Repulsion (1965), ‘satanic’ Rosemary’s Baby (1968), ‘alienating’ The Tenant (1976), or grand melodramas like Chinatown (1974), and the beautiful Tess (1979), Polanski made nine short films, most of them while he was a stellar student at the renowned Łódź Film School, and the first short, Bicycle (1955), was unfortunately lost. One of them, his award-winning graduation film, Two Men and a Wardrobe (1958), is well-known, but the others are rarely screened. Though all available on YouTube, these films, among them the very prophetic The Fat and the Lean (1961), Mammals (1962) tend to be playful and dark, absurd and surreal, and reveal the skilful style that would consume much of his later work. They are all available on DVD too, but now the Polish Cultural Institute in New York has set these shorts on a journey around the US during November, with stops scheduled at New York, Washington, Chicago, Seattle, Austin, Texas, and Los Angeles among other cities. Travelling with the films is a group called Sza Za, described as an experimental electro-acoustic duo from Warsaw. DJ Carlos Niño from KPFK’s Spaceways Radio will be on hand to spin tunes before and after the films. They’ve composed a new score for the screenings, which are also intended to pay tribute to Krzysztof Komeda, a key figure in Polish film music who worked extensively with Polanski, and on his cult classic Dance of the Vampires (1966) he later turned into very popular stage shows.
Polanski’s movies always possessed certain features and themes, which are indicative of his favourable topics he uses within a structure of closed dramaturgy. When structuring the plot, he bases it on a few, or even only a couple of protagonists dramatically isolated from their surroundings or even own mind as in Repulsion. This method, usually used more often in the theatre than in movies, see Knife in the Water and Death and the Maiden (1994) with only three players, or the upcoming God of Carnage with four, makes it possible to follow the evolution of the characters and their mutual relationships in very closed conditions, allowing the viewers to study human nature; a subject matter of all his films. Fascinated by the murky sides of the human mind and sadomasochistic relationships between people, Polanski uses them to convey the existential truth about wo/man and their miserable condition, which reflect his fascination with the dominant and the subordinate, the victimiser and victim. This is demonstrated in Polanski’s earlier films such as The Fat and the Lean, where he plays the oppressed and fettered ‘Lean’ himself, with a fat Rittenbandesque man dictating him to ‘dance after his beating of the drum’, or gavel, as it was to happen later in [his] real life. Polanski’s main subject is the evil which springs from the depths of the human psyche, born out of the untameable need to torment others, with a sub-context of sexual repression/excesses. Polanski himself fell victim to the suggestive language of his movies, and after the macabre murder of his wife and friends, some of the critics and moviegoers believed that Polanski himself had summoned the forces of evil, the deaths of those near to him being payment for his dealings with the devil. If that were the case, he sure as hell had not fallen victim to some women crying rape.
While still some believe Polanski is under house arrest right now, or in prison or was denied bail, or or or, which for one nullifies some people saying that he never was in prison, and all happened a years ago, it only shows people are more than ill-informed about the factual timeline of the case let alone any actual facts. Others even manage to use Espinoza against Polanski now in a desperate bid by twisting his offering him a time served sentence some time back, (though on the condition to show up in his court), which of course never happened. Some really deluded brains even see Zenovich’s more than impartial documentary as terribly skewed and biased in his favour, that I really wonder how grossly distorted and twisted these people’s minds can become. I’d be ashamed to belong to a mindless group who keep on about something they have no clear facts of and simply take a few incomplete transcript bits and highly prejudiced media junk pieces as the ultimate truth, twist and turn it some more to make it even more inaccurate and nasty, thinking Polanski believes he got away with a crime, while utterly ignoring the actual criminals were in fact the courts and people who put him there and tried to smear him ever since. On a more positive note, the European Film Academy in contrast loves Polanski. The Ghost Writer has been nominated for seven European Film Awards: for best film, best director, best editor, the brilliant production designs by Albrecht Konrad, the superb filmscore by composer Alexandre Desplat, and best actor for the Ghost himself Ewan McGregor. The 2300 members of the European Film Academy will select the winners of this year, which will be announced in Tallinn, Estonia December 4th. So let’s see if The Ghost will be picking up more awards, which it deserves. And Polanski, his highly skilled crew and cast.
After I found plenty of my own comments I left on my own blogs or others’ articles plastered all over the Net under different names over the past year people simply made their own, or even posted most of my blogs’ paragraphs here and there in chunks as if they were their own findings, I have nothing against their disseminating them even further, and thought I return the favour and just cross-post other people’s comments for a while. While some still keep speculating about what was going on in Ms Geimer’s head then and now, (or her mother’s and sister’s) but also about what was going on in Polanski’s mind, I’m sure most get it wrong either way. To get a more plausible answer to that, let’s not forget that it all happened in 1977, Polanski was a European man coming from different cultures, he had been exposed to the swinging Sixties and promiscuous Seventies, braless females draped into tight transparent blouses, miniskirts, and topless beaches all over Europe to nudist beaches in some countries. And, oddly enough, the sex crime rate didn’t soar, unlike in the sex-regressed US. Polanski was obviously attracted to Ms Geimer in the end and the attraction was consummated, if unlawfully or not, but, do you really think that someone his age, with that kind of experience and plenty women to call on already, could be ‘seduced’ by a mere girl taking her top off, at a photoshoot at which nothing had happened until after the girl in question wanted to rest on the third shoot? No, he would have been much cooler regarding topless activities of all sorts of nubile girls and women, and if Ms Geimer really had told him off, he’d been off to find himself someone else pronto.
Fact is, Ms Geimer had lied to her mother through omission, so, why should we believe anything that she told the Grand Jury, or that she would not lie to the Grand Jury, when certain aspects could not be corroborated from the start? Ms Geimer as a teenager had lost credibility the moment she purposely concealed her topless shoot with Polanski from her mother, that she later claimed she felt ‘uncomfortable’ no one seems to have noticed, felt the situation became ‘scary’, yet did nothing to convey it to anyone or simply leave. So, since she has admitted to one lie through omission of that crucial matter of the topless photos despite Polanski explicitly asking her to tell him if some pictures wouldn’t be acceptable right before they went to Nicholson’s house, yet did nothing, it is more difficult to know where and when she is telling the truth, or lies. She admitted to purposely lying by omission and about having asthma, that Polanski was in the Jacuzzi with her, or that Huston interrupted them, and is in fact a statement against her own interests that obviously went terribly wrong, and shows that her purpose despite what was happening at the first photo shoot which she said she did not ‘like’, was to continue her working relationship with Polanski and/or her ‘starstruck attraction’ to Polanski, if not ‘sexually’. A lie of omission is to remain silent when ethical behaviour calls for one to speak up. It is a method of deception and duplicity that uses the technique of simply remaining silent when speaking the truth would significantly alter the other person’s capacity (in this case her mother not to call the cops and Polanski having had the chance to destroy the photos) to make an informed decision.
Ms Geimer denied her mother the right to choose the options to allow for topless photos or not, though the mother herself could have asked Polanski exactly what kind of photos they would be to avoid any friction, or to tell her daughter to stop any more topless photography with Polanski and use any of the others for the Vogue Hommes assignment. Technically her mother was a decoy to her deception and manipulation, which in the end caused not only her own, her mother’s but Polanski’s instant downfall when they used the sex against him she had told her boyfriend about, but not her mother either since it never was rape and never would have by her own admission, had the ‘jealous’ and equally manipulative sister not overheard them. Was Ms Geimer’s or her half-sister’s behaviour towards their mother ethical or moral? Certainly not. Was her mother deceived by Ms Geimer and did she serve her own self-interests at her mother’s, Polanski’s and her ultimately own expense? Most certainly. Of course Gailey failed her own daughter too on several levels and in different ways I touched on plenty of times, people like to ignore. Ms Geimer was a teenager back in 1977 with most people not even alive then but think they know it all in their meddling delusion, and is now a grown woman in her late Forties and had a perfectly happy life. So, their argument of ‘what if that was your daughter’ or sister is MOOT. She wants Polanski not only forgiven, but freed, all charges dismissed, not only because of how abused she felt by the media then or today and the courts, but because she ALSO believes that HIS rights were violated, and has said so often enough.
Shame is no one but another woman in charge listened to her – Widmer-Schlumpf – but rather twist/ed and turn/ed her words of today to make her a liar when she’s in fact telling the truth. Such arises from a teenager’s lies that went terribly wrong no one could stop once the law took over. As lies ultimately always do. Had Polanski never been betrayed by the Gaileys who therefore enabled the law enforcement and the courts to do the same, everyone had been fine with it, even if he came out today, that he did the exact same thing like everyone else had around him and no one was punished for it, before and after. And furthermore, had he been a ‘white American’, he would have undoubtedly received the usual probation and a fine with no previous record had they made the mistake to call on the law, if that, with guaranteed hardly any media coverage even if he had been a ‘Hollywood heartthrob’ and everyone would have said to let him be, it was one-off ‘mistake’. Or the case had simply been dismissed as so often and as it should be for consensual underage sex, not send men into prison for it. We wouldn’t even be talking about it for the online lynch mob of today to go rabid all over it. Polanski was persecuted because of his fame, the über ego of the judge, and his fear of looking bad in the media, instead of just telling that is was merely a case of unlawful sex and everyone could have gone home and on with their lives, artistic endeavours and Ms Geimer had become famous other than for being ‘Polanski’s victim’.
As for Polanski pleading ‘guilty’ to that one count and all others are dead and gone, like [liar] Lewis he had to read from a script prepared for him by Rittenband followed by this equally ‘directed’ probation hearing Dalton and Gunson exposed in Wanted and Desired as ‘media show’, so how is that ‘voluntarily pleading guilty’ or in any form ‘lawful’, when he was forced into it and both attorneys exposed that travesty years later, Cooley & Co however simply ignore? Just like all the other misconduct? Pleading guilty does in fact not always mean someone IS guilty. He was forced into it to end the charade or face the uncertainty of a biased jury. It was a pitiful and deceptive stage show for the press and everyone but the press knew it was a disgraceful sham. Instead of tossing out the cease the mother most certainly had preferred, or she or the attorneys had pressed for a trial, or at least a plea to a higher count and hard time at their discretion had there been any evidence of force – either physically or verbally – but they did not since there was no evidence or ever will be no matter what people want. Had Rittenband not played his own omission games with the press, he’d simply closed the case – but that of course hadn’t brought him all this lovely attention and gossip at his Club. And more clippings for his ego scrapbook. Just think of all the real rapists and paedophiles he or Cooley today could have tracked down and prosecuted with the money that was spent on trying to go after Polanski for his own über ego of becoming AG. But then again Cooley doesn’t care about real criminals either, as seen so often.
Let’s not forget, Polanski would NEVER have jeopardised his career by sexually abusing or raping anyone – filmmaking was and is his life above all else – not a chance he had thrown that away for a moment of madness by violating a female. Polanski was never known to lose control; he loved women, had many lovers in his long life, and NONE of them had ever cried rape. Bar Ms Geimer as a powerless teenager pushed into the role of victim for her age, and the two pathetic, ‘professional victims’ and self-proclaimed liar Lewis and Vogelhut who tried to exploit Ms Geimer’s case she now so desperately wants dismissed. Let’s also make something absolutely clear that cannot ever plausibly be disputed: Polanski is NOT a stand-in for every male on this planet who has ever gotten away with rape, factually raped someone or rather was accused of rape/s that never happened. And Ms Geimer is not a stand-in for every woman who has ever been raped – or rather NOT been raped – and is no less a false rape accuser like so many others. See Lewis and Vogelhut as the ones more ‘prominent’, Ms Geimer now wants to make good on by pleading the case be dropped NO genuine rape victim would ever demand. Unfortunately, that is often how these cases are treated in feminist screeds and blindly biased news coverage of rape and false rape claims that are not balanced as they should but skewed in favour of the former, the liars who are excused with all sorts of bogus reasons, the poor poor abused females, making real victims look liars too very soon unless they can produce irrefutable evidence, which on the other hand is ALWAYS present. In all three cases concerning Polanski however there were NONE or ever will be.
This typically and preferentially unbalanced coverage that a rape is fact, the male IS a rapist and the female IS a ‘victim’ despite NO proof as of yet foments rape hysteria and creates the deceptive impression that rape is rampant. It’s certainly NOT, or five million females have been raped within one year in the UK alone if we take the population as roughly 30/30 million male/female as per their ludicrous ‘stats’ of one in six females was, is or will be raped. Not by a far shot. It’s über lunacy. In fact, it’s more likely that one in six accusations is false at the high rate of reports that ARE publicised. This, of course, masks the false rape accusation problem since the vast majority of false rape claims far outnumbering real rapes are not charged, much less news reported. They are handled at the police level with the goal of disposing of them quietly and expeditiously without ever reaching any courts, often with a stern warning only to the false accuser that if the matter were pursued, she would be exposed to criminal charges. Which on the other hand hardly ever happens while the man was destroyed no matter what in contrast after unjust prison time of varying duration, and none of these liars will ever see the inside of a jail where they belong. Like Lewis and Vogelhut, since Ms Geimer wants Polanski rightly freed and the case finally closed. Those plenty low-profile stories never make the news like that of Polanski having been utterly shredded by now beyond all recognition and facts. Feminists will always be the same repulsive misandrists to pander the same hideous lies, and the same ugly record they repeat over and over will never change in dis/respect to the falsely accused victims since men will always be seen as guilty even if the case is dropped, the charges dismissed and the accuser found out to have lied, simply for the fact that men have a penis and that is enough to warrant blame on the male species as a whole and to call them rapists and/or paedophiles without qualms. Or proof.
And here’s something very interesting – the unsealing request of Gunson’s testimony from both Polanski and Ms Geimer as joined petitioners – Cooley ‘summarily denied’. Of course.
Polanski v. S.C.L.A. (Supreme Court Los Angeles)
Division 7 B223085
03/18/2010 Filed petition for writ of: mandate/stay
03/18/2010 Exhibits filed in support of: 2 volumes
03/18/2010 Request for judicial notice filed.
03/19/2010 Order filed. The court has read and considered the petition for writ of mandate filed 3/18/2010. The People are requested to serve file opposition, on or before 3/30/2010.
03/23/2010 Filed joinder of: Samantha Geimer to Roman Polanski’s petition. Verified petition and one volume of exhibits in support of petition submitted concurrently with the joinder.
03/26/2010 Order filed. This court has determined that proper review in this matter requires examination of the transcript of the conditional examination of Roger Gunson, conducted on February 26, 2010, March 9, 2010, and March 12, 2010. The respondent court is ordered to transmit the transcript to this court, on or before April 6, 2010. The respondent shall also transmit forthwith a copy of its order authorizing the sealing of the transcript.
03/30/2010 Request filed to: Petitioner’s request to be allowed to received a copy of the sealed transcript of the conditional examination of Roger Gunson.
03/30/2010 Opposition filed. The People
03/30/2010 Request filed to: People’s request to file Exhibit H, attached to request, under seal.
03/30/2010 Request for judicial notice filed. The People’s request for judicial notice of legislative history materials, attached as People’s Exhibit C in opposition.
04/01/2010 Filed letter from: Joanna McCallum (Manatt Phelps), counsel for Petitioner re: will file reply to opposition to petition on or before April 9, 2010, three days after the April 6, 2010 deadline set for the Los Angeles County Superior Court to transmit sealed transcript(s).
04/01/2010 Order filed. The People’s request to file People’s Exhibit H in support of the opposition to the captioned petition is denied.
04/01/2010 Filed proof of service. Showing proper service of letter filed April 1, 2010 on parties [By Manatt Phelps Phillips]
04/01/2010 Received copy of document filed in trial court. ORDER from Los Angeles County Superior Court re: the transcripts and video recordings of the conditional examination of Mr. Gunson conducted on February 26, 2010, and continued on March 9, 2010 and March 10, 2010 were ordered sealed pursuant to section 1344 of the Penal Code. [Filed in response to this court's March 26, 2010 order.]
04/06/2010 Reply filed to: Reply to opposition to petition for writ of mandate
04/06/2010 Request for judicial notice filed. By Petitioner Seeks judicial notice of two news articles published January 10, 2010 and March 31, 2010. [Articles attached to request/motion.]
04/06/2010 Received: Sealed transcript from Los Angeles County Superior Court, pursuant to this court’s March 26, 2010 order.
04/07/2010 Order filed. Petitioner’s request for judicial notice filed April 6, 2010 is denied.
04/12/2010 Order filed. The court has received from the Los Angeles Superior Court sealed transcripts of the examination of Roger Gunson conducted on February 26, 2010, March 9, 2010 and March 12, 2010. The sealed transcripts will be lodged, but not filed, pending further order of this court.
04/22/2010 Order denying petition filed. By petition for writ of mandate filed March 18, 2010, petitioner requests relief from this Court on the basis of new evidence and ask this Court to overturn the magistrate’s order sealing a conditional examination transcript. Petitioner has failed to present this evidence to and request his desired relief from the trial court. (Phelan v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal.2d 363, 372; Safai v. Savia (2008) 164 Cal. Ap. 4th 233, 243), and he has not established that he lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Code Vil. Proc., sec. 1086.) Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that the trial court lacked the discretion under Penal Code section 1193 to refuse to approve petitioner’s absence at sentencing. The petitioner for writ of mandate is summarily denied.
04/22/2010 Case complete.
Geimer v. S.C.L.A.
Division 7 Case Number B223209
Date Description Notes
03/23/2010 Filed petition for writ of: mandate/prohibition/stay 1 vol of exhibits.
03/24/2010 Order filed. The petition for writ of mandate filed herein March 23, 2010 has been read and considered. The People are requested to serve and file opposition, on or before April 6, 2010.
03/25/2010 Requested – extension of time
03/25/2010 Granted – extension of time.
04/16/2010 Opposition filed. By the People (District Attorney’s Office) (I.e., Cooley)
04/22/2010 Order denying petition filed.
04/22/2010 Case complete.
The DA’s office filed ten days late – yet was accepted after a granting of time extension – of course. How’s that for manipulation and withholding [of] crucial evidence. Apart from continually denying Polanski and Ms Geimer [legal] relief – to dismiss the case.
While some rightly say, “The ‘13-year old’ was not a ‘child’, but a sexually mature and already sexually active and ovulating young lady! We are very pleased that Roman was freed and commend the Swiss for restoring their national honor by freeing a political prisoner!” others go all berserk with over-reactionary and über-patriotic lunacy that defies any common sense demanding actions that are far worse and most of all more illegal than anyone’s ‘crime’ of sleeping with a teenager like millions have done and will be doing till the end of time. Here’s one of them from the US, of course, where NO intelligence quotient was ever created in his mushy grey matter, posted after Polanski’s release on some trashy US online rag, obviously. “We need to send a rendition team after him. (The CIA!) We know where he is, and when to get him. Enough with involving foreign governments, those who carry secret agendas, in this matter. (Eh?) America needs to send in a stealth commando or spy team to kidnap Polanski and bring him back to our territory to face trial for his crimes. (Sure, because he’s such a threat!) Forget the Europeans, they know that he is guilty, (really?) and after their collectively voiced upset, which is sure to come, they’ll get over it, and they will be made to respect the USA for taking such a bold action!!! (Bold BS more like. No one in their right mind ‘respects’ the US for exactly this kind of fascist militant talk.) Further, we need to ban Polanski’s movies, past, present, and future, from being released in the USA…and discourage American and International film companies from doing business with him. Lastly, hefty fines should be sanctioned against Polanski, through the courts, about 1 million dollars a day, as leveraged against his film profits, from films that he has previously released here in the States, until he is brought to justice.”
(He faced ‘justice’ ages ago, or rather injustice – and no one can ban harmless films.) “The courts have the power to levy such fines, but have failed to do so…to date? Well, it is time that they be called on it, and thus, forced to do their jobs-something they have not been making an honest effort at executing. Anyone who works with Polanski should be made aware, that doing business with him will place their investments, and resulting profits, into serious risk; those…that which…involve Polanski, directly, or indirectly, from DVDs, to Cable, and Broadcast TV, profits, etc., will be subject to said fines being levied against said films, production companies and studios, et al, until the fugitive director is made to serve his time in a US prison. This court order should be backdated to include profits from films that have been in release for years, in the United States and related territories!!! If you really want to bring Polanski to justice, these are the kind of tactics that will bring about actual results, not just more empty talk.” NONE of this is in any form applicable let alone legal in this case. The film business world couldn’t care less who they deal with. Glory glory hallelujah, you über-deluded freak/s, keep on dreaming your US supremacy BS dream! Typical of the over-bigheaded American mindset to think they’re boss on this planet who can do whatever they want or demand. N-O-T!! I’d be ashamed of spewing such brainless bullshit. Such actions might be warranted when it comes to serious terrorists, war criminals or mass murderers, wealthy serial killers or serial rapists and government torturers, corporate extortion that harm millions, hard drugs and sex slave traffickers that harm millions, even abusive soldiers raping and killing countless innocent people of which most originate in the US, but not some harmless old man who had done his time for underage sex decades ago. Unlike plenty other [US] ‘celebrities’!
Unlike sad people who want to officially see his films boycotted in the US, like these demented feminists some months back everyone [rightly] ignored, I thought that this is how things are supposed to work in a free market economy in fact: if something is objectionable, DON’T buy it, but it’s not ‘your’ business to tell sellers to stop selling their stuff since others DO want to buy it, and not listen to a vocal few of their [non-] customer base to boycott so and so. Pull his films? Pull one of a thousand films that various groups for various reasons find objectionable? Where does it end? Films by people who worked with Polanski? The plenty companies and individuals who are tied to them in various form? From the studio caterer to the cameraman, their families? The cinemas or TV channels that show them? The factories that press his DVDs? The studios that produced them all? The countries they were made in? Thousands of people have worked on them, and it’s not your right to boycott ALL of them. If you find his films objectionable just because ‘Polanski’ made them, don’t buy them, don’t watch them, don’t bother with them. It’s a drop in the ocean of the greater millions of fans and buyers at any rate. If that doesn’t satisfy you, picket outside whatever place you want to boycott them, or set yourself on fire in protest if they cannot be bothered with your nonsense. Or burn his films for all I care, since the studios got their money long ago at any rate, the cast/crew and everyone else who made them before they were ever released on DVD and million others WILL buy them, and, it doesn’t make the slightest difference since other countries sell them too.
Despite Polanski never having been convicted of anything, since he never was officially sentenced, his presumptive innocence ignored, his rights violated over and over, his legal status in limbo, he is a ‘rapist’ merely by virtue of the old charges against him that were in fact dropped, and the one he pleaded to was never finalised no matter he pleaded ‘guilty’ to it and had even done his time for it, twice now. To label a presumptively innocent man a rapist in these circumstances is premised on the morally grotesque [feminist] worldview that women don’t lie about rape and that a man deserves to have his name blackened, his reputation besmirched, his life destroyed, solely on the basis of a female’s charge. Or lies. Not only have Polanski[’s] accusers done a grave disservice to the presumptively innocent, but also to actual rape victims, because they trivialise/d rape when they include/d among its true victims women who are only false accusers like Lewis and Vogelhut, after Ms Geimer as long discredited ‘template’ while being a teenager. The fact of the matter is that no amount of publicity can ever undo a malicious false rape claim, and that is the least the news media should do. But they won’t, they’ll never post another lengthy article to exonerate the man, just so to keep the public in the belief that so and so IS a rapist. Guilty or not, and even if found innocent, he’s still a rapist, and that’s all they want to achieve. The fact that he never was formally sentenced and therefore is not officially a sex offender either, obviously doesn’t occur to most – or the fact that he is not registered anywhere as SO to start with, no matter how many new and preposterous categories even Wikipedia created especially for him.
And isn’t it ironic, that the busybodying tripe mongers who parrot/ed all this brain-numbing canard that Polanski’s case or false rape claims get too much publicity do so in one blog after the next devoted to raising ‘awareness’ about ‘rape’ and ‘child abuse’, when all they do is rip him apart over and over with ugly rhetorics unheard of like a pack of salivating hyenas? The blogosphere is a slippery soundboard of indefensible lies and slander and none of it helps any genuine rape victims. NONE. That the feminist sexual grievance industry thinks eye-opening analyses like mine are one fact-finding mission too many to tell the truth tells you everything you need to know about them: that they are manipulative and lying misandrists to the rotten core. But what you expect from idiots who believe liars like Lewis and Vogelhut. Or Geimer’s old accusations she long has refuted in one way or the other. Let’s not forget, Polanski wasn’t interested in stupid little girls, he admired bright young women, pretty and experienced females, and if one takes Ms Geimer and Lewis or Vogelhut, even they fitted that picture at one time before they backstabbed him. Another logic that has escaped everyone in all these months of repetitive online bullshitting, is the fact that they went on and on about the dropped charges as if they were fact, kept on and on about that is was ‘People’ v Polanski, ‘their right’ to see to his ‘punishment’, but, they never realised that, HAD they been fact, the ‘People, i.e., the prosecution HAD him plead to one of THEM and not mere unlawful sex.
But, since they had no goods on any of them, and the mother demanded no jail time either which no one can refute, so, how does that equate with ‘rape’ of any kind? It doesn’t, because there was NO rape. Neither orally, vaginally nor anally, since everyone was and still is so keen on repeating these salacious words, utterly transfixed by them, their lascivious ‘sounds’, their juicy connotations, their sinful meanings, their desirable and forbidden implications alike. And let’s also not forget the unseemly incident outside Gunson’s very own office between Ms Geimer and her mother’s very own boyfriend, NO rape victim would engage in. Sex is the only activity that can be legal and criminal at the same time – it only depends on how you see it, how old you are, how ‘consent’ is given, or not, if you are sexually mature, or sexually repressed. Morally mature, or morally corrupt. The ONE pleasurable thing in life, and feminist ‘laws’ (and brainless religious anti-sex preaching) have made it a sordid game and a ‘sin’ – a weapon. A weapon for the man who rapes, and a weapon for the woman who cries rape. The latter being the more devastating unless it was systematic abuse sometimes resulting in a fatal end. As seen so often with prison rape feminists couldn’t care shit about. A deadly weapon of gender warfare as old as sex itself. Only today it’s legalised ‘shield’ wars only one side can ever win – and it’s not the man’s, since he has ZERO chances of a fair defence at NO evidence needed to proof rape.
On the one hand, females want to be seen as strong and equal when it suits them and hiss at you for holding the door open, or as these ‘poor little disempowered victims’ when they need to in their subtle manipulation and abuse of others and the law. Women are entitled to behave capriciously, while men’s feelings are irrelevant and are obligated to suck it up. Which they do, and in contrast would never cry rape when they wake up next to some less than desirable woman they had ‘apparently’ slept with after a drunken or drugged-out fling. To say, ‘most women don’t make up rape charges’, those people haven’t overcome the stumbling block of ‘most men do not rape’. Indeed, the fact that most rapists are repeat offenders means that even fewer men rape, which feminists obviously don’t get. And in that case, Polanski would have raped by the hundreds and most certainly escalated his attacks. Funny how no one can in fact credibly attest to that. Polanski slept with women, he did not rape or abuse them. From the faulty premise that women do not lie about rape follow the equally faulty but still widely accepted premises that there is no such thing as a false rape claim, and that conviction rates for rape are far too low. To help jack up those rates, or, in the twisted logic that follows from those faulty premises, to help justice be better served, laws and policies are changed to provide rape accusers with special accommodations allowed to no other criminal complainant.
If everyone in society is truly equal, they should not only get the same benefits, but the same punishments as well no matter the gender. And, does killing someone while ‘drunk’, ‘drugged’ or ‘confused’ make you any less guilty of the crime? Hardly. That is a shunting of culpability. This has nothing to do with misogyny but a great deal to do with common decency and in fact misandry. In Polanski’s case it was his fame and the out-of-control media who went berserk and printed his name and pictures before any trial ever happened and should also bear some responsibility for his instant downfall. But they did not, no, they made it worse, they made up more lies, and they hardly ever printed anything in his defence. There is no such thing as responsible journalism anymore let alone today and it sickens me and plenty more. A false rape accuser (and their ilk defenders) sees falsifying a rape as an opportunity, as a right. A false rape accuser believes that she has the right to change her mind at ANY time AFTER consenting and then cry rape. A false rape accuser believes that she will never be caught in her lie because women don’t lie about rape. A false rape accuser lives in denial and is DANGEROUS. See repulsive liars Lewis and Vogelhut. Next to Ms Geimer, who however has long distanced herself from such ugly ‘warfare’ and wants it done and over with and Polanski even vacated of his guilty plea – I wonder why. But then we all know why, and no teenage fantasies can change that.
Another thing that’s very droll, (or rather disturbing) since giving them any more attention than shaking your head very slowly and turning away would result in your own serious brain damage, is the fact that some people expressed religious style hatred and pure baloney psycho/pseudo talk, accusing him of being a psychopath, or sociopath and such illustrious things as a, ‘sadosexual’ ‘paedocriminal’, guilty of ‘notorious brutality’ and ‘paedophilic crimes’, ‘near murder’ and ‘sadism’, with the usual string of slanderous expletives and lots of !!!!! These sick/ening and clearly disturbed people are obsessed with filthy sex they project onto others, (and no doubt practice themselves) utterly consumed by their lurid fantasies. Egomaniac Rittenband behaved like a sociopath to some degree while on the bench, and if Polanski had exhibited any kind of personality disorder, or ‘cruelty’, ‘abusiveness’, brutality or sadism, NO one had worked with him in ANY form, EVER. But such logic eludes the deluded fanatics’ brains. And since we’re on the topic of sociopaths or psychos, here’s their ‘MO’ Polanski most certainly does not fit in any form or ever will. Manipulative and conning. (The ‘Gaileys’? Vannatter?) They never recognise the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviours and lies as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. (Lewis’ plenty lovers.) Grandiose sense of self. (Rittenband/Wells/Cooley and Allred/Lewis.) Feels entitled to certain things as ‘their right’. Pathological liar. Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests. Lack of remorse, shame or guilt. (Lewis/Vogelhut.)
Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. (Rittenband/Wells/Cooley, Allred/Lewis and Vogelhut.) Instead of friends (of which Polanski always had and has plenty unlike Lewis), they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. (Lewis’ plenty lovers and the ones who lied for her afterwards, i.e., Jacobs/Haymes.) The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way. (Lewis using her plenty lovers to make it in the film industry, but no talent, no chance.) Shallow emotions. (No doubt in Lewis’ case or she’d been able to form longer relationships, she ultimately blamed on Polanski.) When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. (‘Acted’.) Outraged by insignificant matters, (like Lewis taking directions from Polanski on set, calling it ‘metal abuse’) yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises. (Lewis’ several promises to kick the drugs habit and subsequent repeat failings.) Incapacity for love. (Hence her ‘lovely man’ leaving her too she ultimately blamed on Polanski.) Need for stimulation. (Drugs.) Living on the edge. (Sex and hard drugs.) Promiscuity and gambling are common. (Lewis the teen-prostitute and later Hollywood sleep-around.) Callousness/lack of empathy. (Hence her cruel attack on Polanski to play the poor victim in real life.) Unable to empathise with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. (Just like Lewis appeared in the interview – cold, venomous, vindictive and fake. Out to destroy with lies.)
Poor behavioural controls/impulsive nature. (Lewis’ whining about Polanski shouting at her, ultimately ‘projecting’ her ‘abuse’ fantasies onto him, blaming him for her bulimia.) Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, (also known as crocodile tears and whining, attention seeking, emotional blackmail, and Lewis seducing her plenty men first by her own admission to control them) as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. (Unless they kick her out soon and she simply finds herself a new victim.) Believe they are entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others. (Hence her blaming Polanski on her own life-long failures without qualms and the fact that she would have lied in court to see him sent down in Cooley’s name.) Early behaviour problems/juvenile delinquency. (Lewis the school drop-out junkie and fourteen year old prostitute no doubt resulting in hatred for men ‘using’ her [for sex].) Problems in making and keeping friends, (hence her plenty changing Johns/men/‘friends’) aberrant behaviours such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc. (As cruel as her lying words and calls for ‘justice’.) Irresponsible/unreliable. (Reason Lewis didn’t make it in the film business unlike classy Kinski and Emmanuelle, no willpower but blaming power.) Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. (As seen with her abuse lies when her victim [Polanski] was the most helpless and vulnerable [while under house arrest].)
Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. (With intentions of deliberately lying on the stand for self-serving ends like all false accusers do with sick gratification.) Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed. (More than obvious with her sexual abuse lies and abuse fantasy projected onto Polanski, and once found out she lied, deflecting of her earlier [correct] interviews as ‘misquoted’.) Promiscuous sexual behaviour/infidelity. (Her early prostitution and later extreme promiscuity.) Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts. (Her acted and imagined ‘abuse fantasies’ she later blamed on Polanski as easiest target to destroy him as representative of ALL men, who in contrast is NOT a BDSM freak like Vogelhut and Lewis.) Lack of realistic life plan/parasitic lifestyle. (Hence repeat failures in life and relationships while using men as an excuse, and therefore ultimate failure in the film industry.) Tends to move around a lot or makes all-encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively. (Hence no director wanting her and therefore ultimately accused Polanski of mental abuse on set and privately after decades but not THEN, and a few sleazy sex flicks.) Changes life story readily. (As seen with her different stories/lies about what she felt for Polanski wanting him so badly and then hating him, her sexually aberrant fantasies of wanting to be abused ‘on film’ and ultimate accusations of [real-life] ‘abuse’ at the hands of Polanski that never happened.)
Such disorder is also known as revenge driven selfishness and ‘professional victimhood’ in alteration she then can blame on others, striking at her victim when he has ZERO chances of defence to make herself look better. (Though ultimately a sad and sick/ening liar.) Ergo, Lewis is a sociopath on a grand scale which was already obvious in her press conference with Allred, while Vogelhut is just a lying opportunist with a penchant for BDSM games, since people always project/reflect their own tendencies if they accuse others, tapping right into Lewis’ own lies based on Ms Geimer’s long disproved accusations. Ms Geimer doesn’t fall into any of these disorders other than having been not too truthful before the Grand Jury for ‘other’ reasons as a manipulated and fantasising teenager. Like her mother and sister for their own ‘take’ on her story. And of course Wells, Rittenband and Vannatter had their own agendas by using Polanski, except the right one – justice. I wonder if Ms Geimer or Lewis kept in fact a diary that might illustrate their innermost secrets, since ‘starstruck’ girls would no doubt keep one. In Ms Geimer’s case that would be more than helpful to demonstrate what really happened that day I guarantee you would fall in line with what Polanski had stated, while in Lewis’ case her growing drug addiction, sexual exploits and undoubtedly later formed disdain for men would be listed down, and as critical examples of blaming men for her own actions.
Lewis’ pathetic accusations, sorry, lies, of ‘sexual abuse of the worst kind’ and ‘mental abuse’ served to punish Polanski (through the evermore exploited Geimer case) in place of all the men who she believes had ‘used’ her [Lewis] for sex from very early on. That she consented to it all on her own free will doesn’t matter. It’s her delusion of ‘self-abuse’, despite having conceded that SHE seduced ALL men first and I doubt one of them refused her, and then threw them away once they had served their purpose, or failed to ‘deliver’. Such diaries could be Polanski’s salvation, and most certainly show unambiguous assent to the drugs, alcohol and sex, where in Lewis’ case her secret [abuse] fantasies and obvious man-hating tendencies would be graphically illustrated. Polanski happened to be the easiest target of [Lewis’] ultimate revenge, and he must bear all responsibility for his entire gender. Selfish, destructive and deluded women like Lewis [and Vogelhut] need the drama after decades of no professional recognition, their beauty faded, drug addictions undefeated, and what better way to generate excitement and ‘celebrate’ ‘female victimhood’ and satisfy their own little grievances in one go, than to falsely accuse some old and powerless penis-bearing creature of sexual abuse and anal rape they had sex with once, alongside some misandrist ‘attorney’ conducting her fake abuse show in the glare of the world press. Sad.
Now, one of the great film producers of our time, Dino de Laurentis died November 11th at the grand old age of ninety-one, who was to produce Polanski’s film Hurricane he had started on while on probation in 1977 after Rittenband gave him a year stay to finish it abroad on different exotic locations and in Germany, having lost his pervious project The First Deadly Sin for his arrest and the same studio had unceremoniously dropped him immediately without the slightest signs of any guilty verdict or even a trial having ever started, or would. So much for loyalty they certainly had bestowed on their ‘own’, i.e. ‘American stars’. Once Polanski was thrown into Chino against all counsel suddenly, and told de Laurentis that he should find himself another director not to disrupt filming too much, de Laurentis replaced him with the one who would finish the unremarkable remake, with Mia Farrow mind you, at no clear timescale of when he would be walking free from prison. Once Polanski was released after the usually expected 40-45 days, and everyone thought that was it ready to move on, Rittenband wanted to send him back under blackmail of deportation. Polanski went straight to de Laurentis’ office after leaving Dalton’s, and de Laurentis’ rep, who appeared in Wanted and Desired, gave him $1000 to flee Rittenband’s corrupt court. Dino saying, “That judge, che cazza!” (what the fuck!) he and Polanski hugged, one last time, and Polanski went on his way to become a fugitive and left the US forever.
Dino de Laurentis also appeared in Wanted and Desired, to explain that infamous Oktoberfest photo to Rittenband, and that some German business friends had invited Polanski to the fest for a break while working on the preliminaries of the film, and he made it clear that all the women in the photo most certainly were the partners of his business partners and NOT minors – as it is far too obvious unless you’re a deluded radical feminist like Alice Schwarzer lying that they were minors and Polanski had his arms around them, NOT – and Rittenband accepted his explanations for now. He nevertheless as we know, resorted to the infamous move to have Polanski committed to Chino for that ‘diagnostic study’ no one had demanded after psyche reports had already cleared Polanski of being a MDSO out of sheer spite misusing it as punishment – after catching too much heat from the press and his little racist Club buddies. Che cazza indeed. Funny thing is, in Georgia unlawful sexual intercourse only applied to minors below the age of twelve – and in Spain the age of consent was/is thirteen. Had Polanski been in Georgia or Spain, no one could have accused him of [statutory] rape/sodomy, unless proven as forcible, and the case had been dropped. Speaking of psychopaths like Schwarzer, here’s one really nasty customer, who, under an assumed name, apparently once studied film under Polanski in New York after Polanski had worked there in the late Sixties on Rosemary’s Baby, which was filmed in the in/famous Dakota Building where John Lennon resided later and was to be shot dead in front of it in 1980.
Now, the analogy goes like this, why was the American serial killer Rodney Alcala, who had raped and murdered females of all ages in the most horrific fashions, whose MO was to strangle, and when revived strangle them again several times over before killing them, starting with an eight year old girl in the late Sixties, not held responsible right THEN? The authorities knew exactly who had nearly bludgeoned the girl to death after her identifying Alcala and a cop saved her in the nick of time, yet, they did nothing more when she didn’t want to stand trial than give him a few months despite her horrific state, therefore allowing him commit atrocities for decades to come until he finally was sent on death row a third time [only] after he had raped and killed dozens more? How come they knew in several cases in fact it was him, and of his very first unspeakable crime, yet did not say, oh, let’s apply our ‘probable cause’ with enough [fabricated] evidence pointing to him, and have a final ‘People v Alcala’ trial even without the young witness much earlier, who did not want to sit in court to testify even after she recovered and all they could pin on him were’minor changes’ and Alcala was paroled after three years, (while someone who sleeps with a minor gets decades at NO parole since he of course would not consider his act a ‘crime’ to keep these harmless men inside instead, when really sick rapists and murderers are set free after ‘repenting’ – only to reoffend). So, the LA courts went after Polanski for decades on end (though technically only six times in all) who lived in Europe whose so called ‘victim’ did NOT want the defendant behind bars, but the case dropped, the charges dismissed, yet kept on pertaining ‘People v Polanski’ and demented people called for HIS death, rather than murderers.
They should have done so in Alcala’s case and as vigorously, or ‘resourcefully’ as seen with Allred/Lewis and their smear campaign in the name of Cooley, and as vindictively it turned out, but no. Alcala was finally held responsible this year only when said girl as a grown woman finally faced him in court to send him down for good, and he was convicted of her vicious attack and other counts of rape/murder. They wasted millions in US taxpayer money on a French director, didn’t listen to Ms Geimer of today to let Polanski be, yet still went ahead with the proceedings in 1977 despite Ms Geimer ALSO not wanting to testify against Polanski, BUT they had NO proper trial when the attacked girl of then equally refused to testify against Alcala or he’d been in prison since before Rosemary’s Baby. Alcala slipped through the net dozens of times despite several custody stays on ‘minor charges’ and several more brutal murders attributed to him, but they had to go after Franco/Polish citizen Polanski to win some corrupt judge more scrapbook clippings and a crooked DA of today Attorney General. On the one hand the cops and courts pursue innocent people, or those who had done time as in Polanski’s case, but let the really dangerous criminals run around for decades to do untold damage despite knowing who they are and could have applied all sorts of il/legal tactics to see Alcala rot in prison much earlier. So, why did Cooley & Co go after Polanski like a bunch of berserk witch hunters, but not a brutal serial rapist and murderer like psychopath Alcala? I think the answer is clear – Polanski is a famous artist who never harmed anyone, Alcala who did real harm to many women, is a nobody who amounted to nothing, despite being one of the most prolific and brutal serial rapist/murderer in US history no other country can produce. So much for the law being ‘blind’.
US DOJ Attorney General Eric Holder today, November 19th 2010 – the one some believe/d had a hand in Polanski’s release though that’s more than ridiculous since he only refused Gunson’s testimony to the Swiss on Cooley’s refusal to unseal it to begin with – overturned a controversial (and entirely unconstitutional) federal policy originated under [war criminal] George W. Bush that required federal defendants waive their right to DNA testing in order to plead guilty. Also known as blackmailing someone into being doubly guilty and close the door on the ONE escape route to be exonerated. Holder ordered a review of the policy last year after an investigation by the Washington Post and wrote in a memo released today that the policy was too rigid to accommodate the facts presented by individual cases. Dozens of people exonerated nationwide each year through DNA testing had pleaded guilty to crimes they didn’t commit, and it never made any sense to force people, as a ‘condition’ of a plea, to give up their right to future DNA testing, particularly since we know that factually innocent people plead guilty all the time for various reason, mostly the prospect of a higher (equally unjust) sentence, but the waivers have been part of the standard plea agreement filed by some of the nation’s most prominent US attorneys. Why there is no DNA testing before anyone needs to plead guilty – innocent or otherwise as part of the evidence – to avoid that [or a trial] and make people guilty, is another question. Defence lawyers say their clients are essentially forced into signing waivers or lose the benefits of a plea agreement (which don’t even exist outside the US and rightly so), such as a lighter sentence, no matter they’re in fact innocent to start with. Good on Holder – far too late for many who were destroyed in jail.
This is in effect the same what was forced on Polanski, since he had to wave his right to have a trial once he pleaded and the plea stands after the other five counts were dropped in exchange, or his right to appeal any deportation once he was forced into a second stint at Chino, which was not Rittenband’s right to impose on any defendant to begin with – hence Polanski ‘waving’ bye-bye to his corrupt court. Rittenband also could have imposed a third (and even more unlawful), much higher sentence on him despite all parties having agreed on NO time from the beginning had Polanski agreed to do the rest 48 days – after Rittenband wanted to send him back to Chino ALSO no one had asked for, i.e., a ‘second’ sentence. That way Rittenband then had forced him to sit out any appeals on remand to have his sentence (or deportation) overturned that could take months or years beyond any penalty he might have imposed on him against all counsel to start with. I guess Polanski never repeated that he once had faith in the US justice system after all that, especially with Cooley at the helm today. Speaking of state Attorney Generals, while the Californian run is still on, it looks like Cooley might lose after all – if only by one vote fine by me – since a few thousand ballots still have to be counted to be sure, and his opponent Harris is set to take over, so Cooley can finally retire and give up playing corrupt DA too. THAT would make my Christmas this year. Funny thing is, the outgoing AG governor-elect to replace Schwarzenegger, was once California’s governor before, exactly when Polanski was arrested in 1977, before Arnie would be pardoned over his own much longer statutory rape affair way back in 1975 to become the most useless governor in Californian history. So he’ll not be back.
Now November 25th, Cooley finally has conceded that he lost the race for AG against pro gay-rights and anti-death penalty former DA Harris – after Cooley already had thrown a victory party in his arrogance when he was still marginally ahead last week – and clearly shows that the ‘people’ don’t want him to become even more powerful than he already is. That comes from unwisely tangling with Polanski for political gain, many clearly realised was vindictive posture, and for his intentions of banning medical marihuana ailing folks depend on and voted against him, while leaving hard drug dealers and organised crime unpunished. However, he also declared that he will sit out his two years left as DA, just so to cause more misery to innocent people while letting real criminals roam free to do some more damage, plus, only aged sixty-three, he might be inclined to run for a fourth term as DA, and even seek other statewide offices. I hope he rots in hell and not be re-elected. And misandruous, malicious liars like Allred, Lewis along with Vogelhut and her big hat. While some still think Polanski is under house arrest right now in their glorious misinformation, others seriously believe he is wanted by the law for having killed his second wife – Sharon Tate in 1969 – muddling both cases up big time. Funny how he managed to film Chinatown just four years later in the same town and no one wanted him for the murders. Such comes from reading incorrect and incomplete accounts of the cases online, or any diatribe soaked blogs with nothing but ugly lies and slander, despite the fact that anyone can get to all the actual facts and truth. But that would shatter their belief in his notoriety and wickedness. The truth is always much more banal – and boring.
After Polanski had to deal with enough cruel lies about both him and Sharon, nasty fabrications about both cases for decades, the so called Hillside Strangler had committed statutory rape by the string in LA during the same time before starting to brutally rape and kill women, and just three days after Rittenband wanted to sentence Polanski in absentia the Strangler’s last victim was found in 1978. So, while they had to pursue Polanski for his one-off unlawful sexual affair with sensationalistic headlines like ‘Polanski flees!’, but not this brutal serial rapist and killer with the same fervor, the Strangler had forced women into prostitutions just for fun on the side, killing dozens of victims in horrible ways. But of course, real crime could not sell as many papers as the sex life of an infamous film director whose wife was butchered by some hippie nutters a few years earlier, after accusing him of being a Satanist having sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for success and [done] the killings. People really believed that bullshit. And some still do today, or fabricate/d more lies, like being a snuff film producer, despite Polanski having given plenty interviews that made BOTH cases perfectly clear – and that he had done his time and the judge wanted to send him back against agreed deal. Except no one seems to have read or listened to them to know better not to keep on about how he never was in prison and still needs to be sentenced. No, they need to listen to Ms Geimer for a change and drop the utterly corrupt/ed case, vacate his guilty plea and close the case, even without ever litigating the misconducts and Cooley can get away with his smear campaigns. I’m sure both Polanski and Ms Geimer would be happy with that to find final peace – except of course those who got away with all the misconducts and lies in the first place.
Once asked in a 2000 interview for a UK TV magazine (Radio Times) if Polanski would allow ‘someone like him’, i.e., ‘older man’, to meet with his daughter once being a mature teenager, since she was only seven at the time, Polanski answered (no doubt with the approval of Emmanuelle who was nineteen when they first met): “I’ll have to wait and see. I think she could handle it, and make her own decision. She’s bright, with an independent spirit.” Meaning, that he would not be so narrow-minded and tell her not to see an older man – with the same spirit he grew up with and lived by – before the sex-repressed US psyche and laws drove a nasty splinter into his life that was to forever be a thorn in his side no one wants to see finally extricated – but extradited and pushed in deeper. Asked in that same interview why people keep accusing him of his once interest in younger women after Sharon’s death, he said probably out of jealousy, and of course sheer bigotry and hypocrisy, since many men prefer/red younger women, marry them, even in the States. Except in his case it’s been blown out of all proportions and he’s vilified like no one else, while other ‘celebrities’ did and do the same and no one bats a lash. He also said that he didn’t choose younger females because they could be ‘manipulated’ – since older women can be just the same and in fact can be the very manipulators no matter their age – that this was not his motivation, but because they are beautiful and innocent (unless your name is C/harlot/te Lewis) and it was just sex and they also liked him, not only wanted him for the sex. It was mutual give and take, and both were happy.
Polanski always said that he doesn’t understand why people (unlike his own circle, fans and colleagues) must go on about it after all these years, or Kinski, who in fact is a close family friend to this day, who did not betray him unlike ugly liar Lewis. While someone seriously proposed that Polanski could manipulate these girls for their age and because they were not from artists’ families to ‘know the score’, i.e., as in the casting couch game too many people take as fact just because some practised it when it’s in fact rather rare (unless certain individuals would prostitute themselves at any rate), Lewis of course revived that false assumption with her ludicrous accusation of having been pressured into it by Polanski to get her Pirates role. Since many missed that she decades back had made it clear that was not the case, had her part already, and only started that affair with him a year after they first met, not once saying anything untoward that ‘abuse’ she claimed this year had taken place once they met to be cast right away, their arguments are as shallow as their brains and her lies. I was rather thinking that they in fact all came from artist family backgrounds bar Lewis, especially with a very famous and demanding father in Kinski’s case, and very ambitious if not half as famous mother in Ms Geimer’s, and Emmanuelle too comes from a very renowned acting family, who, in contrast to Lewis just a cheap prostitute, was a real classy model and actress like Kinski long before they ever met Polanski. I highly doubt they could be manipulated in any form, and Lewis too said she was very ‘streetwise’, later insisting she was seducing men first, not they her, so in fact that she was the manipulator and basically used men. What better way than to twist it all backwards decades later, and play the pathetic little victim of men just like feminists love it. Maybe she is so twisted by now she even believes her own lies like liars do.
Polanski also said often enough that he only liked bright and independent, very strong young women, like Kinski or Emmanuelle, even Ms Geimer or Lewis at one point, not immature silly little nymphettes not knowing better, before the latter two and Vogelhut would betray his trust and former mentoring them. In the ‘court of public opinion’, however, people keep declaring their false assumptions as facts, as in, ‘the mother of that girl Polanski raped knew damn well what was going to happen, and only called the cops because she realized her daughter was really traumatized and wasn’t going to shut up about it. Of course drugging her and then raping her up the ass probably wasn’t part of the original deal he made with her dear old mom,’ – as if Polanski had raped others before in any form to say or know that – others stated, ‘I’m guessing that once Polanski’s tastes became known there were plenty of stage mothers and would-be blackmailers pimping out their underage daughters to him, and now it’s a sordid media circus. Thanks Oprah.’ Indeed – and they still don’t know any better, no matter what Ms Geimer in fact had said herself to Larry King recently – but then again they missed all that or that she as usual sent mixed signals. As in, for one not correcting Silver on, ‘it was rape, because of the drugs and alcohol involved’, while conveniently forgetting to mention ‘statutory’, and that none of it was ever proven as fact and no alcohol charge was brought in to start with, when she before had said herself that is wasn’t rape and it was easy to forgive him because of that. And it is of course even more wondrous how she claims that the courts and media have harmed her more than Polanski, as if he ever had, but gives all these [conflicting] interviews, bound to misquote her and twist and turn things again.
Funny too how she can talk about the case, and Polanski hardly ever did bar in his autobiography in more detail, despite the fact that her [varying] account/s could never be substantiated, unlike his, since no one ever seriously challenged her claims, while his book is a published work no one could ever fault, (in contrast to her ever-lesser ‘rape rhetoric’ we of course wouldn’t know of had she not given them), or she could have challenged him over it. That only makes her duplicities become even clearer and that it really never was rape. But, it seems she only sued Polanski because of that very biography, since Silver apparently said in that last King show that Polanski wrote something she didn’t ‘like’. So why not challenge that [book] instead of suing him over that one pleaded-to charge? But then of course she never could prove her, or disprove his, claims and now wants ALL the charges dismissed. It’s rather insulting how she complained about Polanski’s perfectly honest and in fact respectful if intimate account, but did not find it offensive what Kiernan had come up with, pure filth and ugly fabrications, even putting thoughts and words into her literal mouth and Polanski’s penis in fact, when she had never even accused him of having done so in any form. So she sued the man she slept with over the truth who had not harmed her, but not scum like Kiernan and others who twisted her words even more, that Polanski had sodomised her while unconscious in the Jacuzzi she again never had claimed either. Why not sue psychopath Reisman, who even turned the entire case into a sordid near-murder event based on Kiernan’s seedy lies. And of course they got away with it since Polanski in contrast could never take legal actions against them.
King apparently asked her if she had been upset had she been unsuccessful in suing Polanski, and she said no, but on the other hand let her plenty lawyers pursue the suit for a whole ten years before they ultimately simply took his money from a third party of course no one knows about, since she could not prove anything beyond what Polanski had pleaded to, and a little ‘mental distress’. My guess is that she was ‘upset’ over the fact that Polanski had exposed not only the facts, but her ‘lewd act’ with her mother’s boyfriend outside Gunson’s office, or that she was ‘very responsive’ after ‘she spread herself and he entered her’, and that there was no doubt about her sexual experience. Polanski knew women, he would not ever misread any of them, and the truth is always hard to swallow, so what better way than to sue an infamous fugitive who cannot fight back. While this should have been be dealt with in a fair, judicious manner right after Rittenband had messed Polanski about to avoid any of what had occurred, the court’s ongoing pursuit is nothing but political, vindictive posturing, or Cooley’s using him for [now thankfully lost AG] votes or a better payday for self-interested lawyers and the irresponsible media feeding the public more lies. If Polanski had been formally sentenced in absentia this year, and therefore convicted of what he pleaded to, Cooley could not have used Lewis to influence the proceedings with her disgusting lies, and Vogelhut had never joined her in their smear campaign either. Ms Geimer in contrast demands to have the charges dismissed, his guilty plea vacated, since Polanski is presumed innocent until final conviction was formally declared she does not seek, nor ever will be finalised, so it would finally be over.
Though Polanski is still wanted by Interpol, since his ‘Red Notice’ is still up and active on their site for ‘crimes against children’, yes, ‘plural’, despite pleading to only one count of unlawful sex which it should state and not ‘sex crimes’, or at least one ‘sex crime’, singular, and children is plural too, when I thought Ms Geimer was merely ‘one’ ‘adult female’ as Larson described her and not a child anymore either by law, but hey, who cares about any facts. Though they have deleted the page which gives sordid (and false) details of the case by Mr Secretary General Noble himself in derogative narrative, Polanski is in good company now, (amongst all the other REALLY dangerous terrorists and criminals) with someone else ‘in/famous’ wanted on several counts of [more than evidently trumped-up] ‘sex crimes’ after he embarrassed the US with his shocking WikiLeaks WarLogs leaks back in August 2010. By now we all know the name of this very secretive Australian guy who exposed their indiscriminate raping, killing and destroying innocent people in their [utterly post-9/11-manufactured] ‘war on terrorism’ in the Middle East. In one case apparently the condom split after he had sex with some Swedish self-proclaimed feminist racial with CIA connections (what a surprise), and in Sweden they apparently call such an accusation rape, rather than sue the makers of that condom, when one might have expected such ludicrous claim from the US ultra feminist brigade. I’m sure they support crying rape after a man didn’t pull out fast enough or conversely too quickly and hadn’t ‘satisfied’ the woman. In the other equally exaggerated case after the ‘first woman’ ‘talked’ to the ‘second’, with ugly visions of Lewis/Vogelhut and their own smear campaign lies, he’s wanted on one count of ‘coercion’ and two counts of ‘sexual molestation’, whatever the heck that means to the extremely misandruous Swedes.
The charges were in fact officially dropped by the Swedish courts at no evidence, only to be renewed after a Swedish right-wing politician reopened the case following WikiLeaks’ dumping the diplomatic communiqués that made the US a laughing stock and put a strain on diplomatic relations. If that’s not politics I don’t know what is. In fact, the guy wanted to discuss the situation and said it was consensual sex the court however point-blank refused after it was transferred to a higher authority unless he surrendered himself after they allowed him to leave the country mind you – just like the LA courts demand/ed Polanski to appear before their court for that ‘fugitive disentitlement doctrine’ they in fact could not actually apply to him, rather than sentence him in absentia and be done with it, and is obviously a trap to arrest the Aussie ‘traitor’, though he’s not a traitor either since he’s not American. So just like the Swiss were lackeys of the US, before they came to their senses and released Polanski, the Swedes however issued an arrest warrant on Julian Assange after he left Sweden with the permission of the government, and then turned up in London in October 2010. After another female Swedish judge on November 18th ordered Assange ‘detained in absentia’ to answer to these ‘sex crimes’ in Stockholm suddenly, another court approved an international arrest warrant for the ex-hacker two days later, at which point the International Prosecution Office in Gothenburg/Sweden applied to Interpol for the Red Notice. And, the best thing is, he wasn’t actually formally charged with anything yet, but they issue an international arrest warrant. I thought first charges, then arrest warrant, then maybe a Red Notice since he’s not in Sweden, and then court. Guess in Sweden it’s the other way round.
Assange is just another guy they call a rapist now to discredit his efforts to expose the US warmonger as the real criminals and rapists they in fact always were themselves, just as Polanski had exposed the LA courts’ corruption and misconducts, and what better way than to destroy a man with smear campaigns and claims of rape that get so boring by now, and issues of international warrants to severely restrict their travels. Just like they had in Polanski’s case, though no one had ever bothered in any part of the world before the Swiss of all fell out of line and betrayed him, and no one ever will attempt that same mistake again since it was made clear on his release that he had done his time already, and because Ms Geimer wants the case dropped altogether and there is no real reason to arrest him again and see him shipped off to the far too vindictive LA courts. That witch hunter Cooley and his name-calling prosecutor Walgren cannot ever allow for that, is clear, now both bereft of their little Polish mouse to torture it some more, which however is not game to suffer this charade any longer. After some idiots had called for Polanski to be raped and murdered, some obviously would say the same in Assange’s case while in fact the majority thinks his actions are warranted to expose the US – and hardly anybody believes in this pathetic rape charade anyhow. In fact, Interpol has no authority to compel a subject’s arrest, but basically can blackmail the 188 member countries in some ‘political’ form into arresting a wanted person at one point, or not as seen in Polanski’s case before the Swiss (or US through the Swiss) used the UBS scandal as leverage, since it’s not mandatory to act on it.
While the Red Notice itself is not an arrest warrant, it does represent a notice that a valid arrest warrant exists in the relevant country – in this case, Sweden – and that that country will seek extradition if the named party is arrested. So in effect, countries make their own decisions about how to treat a Red Notice. Some countries treat it as an actionable request for an arrest; the US however does not, while expecting others to do so in contrast, nor does Interpol have any enforcement powers itself – it cannot enforce criminal laws, but rather is a mechanism to share information between law enforcement organisations around the globe. Hence, no country ever bothered to arrest Polanski before – or ever will again. It is clear that Assange never ‘raped’ anyone either, and that the Swedes acted on the US’s pressure as third party to see him detained, now that the world community has been alerted to arrest him on site to become an accessory in hunting him down. After Assange was applying for Swedish residency and attempting to secure the protection of Swedish free-press laws for his secret-spilling website, according to local news reports, the women told investigators the sexual encounters began as consensual, but turned ‘non-consensual’ and complained that he didn’t heed her ‘pleas’ to ‘stop’ after the condom broke, (as if they ever do), forgetting that he in fact is half deaf and might not have heard her say anything and she said she didn’t indicate to him otherwise the thing broke. Besides, how would she in fact ‘know’ it had until afterwards and noticed the thing is leaking? It’s very much as in was in Polanski’s case who wanted to apply for US citizenship, but luckily rather went for a residency in France since he was born there, or the US could have detained him as one of their own.
This is what happens when you shine a little light of truth on criminal governments and their political behind-the-scenes activities, with invading armies killing babies, raping ‘enemy’ children and women as an ‘honourable act’, but go after someone who ‘lets a condom spilt’, or had sex with a teenager over three decades ago. They will falsely accuse people of anything and make them disappear if they don’t ‘cooperate’, sometimes even just disappear without any charges. So much for ‘transparency’ and honesty from the Obama regime, since, if this was anyone else, would ‘Interpol’ of all be involved who need to be asked first by a relevant country to issue any ‘Notice’? For some ludicrous ‘sex crimes’ any local law enforcement is responsible for first of all, and any decent court then would throw out? And in fact, to act on that Red Notice, the Swedes need to issue a ‘European Arrest Warrant’ first, or the Brits will not act on any of it, since Assange is here in the UK and the cops know exactly where he is. How did someone put it, the irony is, Assange hides behind a veil of secrecy because of personal security, while piercing the veil of secrecy of others who use secrecy for their own security (or ends) – who condemn Assange for doing the ‘wrong thing’ in his undermining their ‘diplomacy’ – while Polanski is running around in the open to make more films – and every day we see diplomacy and security being torched in Washington DC and by those in power, courts or otherwise. Sweden (or Switzerland for that matter) prides itself on very low crime rates and gender equality, yet they have the highest rate of ‘rape’ in the entire EU, multiple times larger than their neighbouring countries. That should make one suspicious about what is ‘rape’ to them and why so few people are convicted of actual rape, since most of this is bullshit like a broken condom. It’s ludicrous beyond ludicrous.
I feel so secure that this team of elite Interpol agents are looking after my best interests and protecting me from these two oh so bad bad sex offenders that bring to light all the crap that is done with our tax money in the name of fighting endless wars against made-up bogeymen, and men like Polanski exposed all the misconducts going on behind closed courtroom doors. How convenient that there are equally trumped-up sex allegations outstanding against this brave publisher of ‘secret’ material the governments don’t want you to see other anonymous sources, whistleblowers, sent him. He, like Polanski, can be glad that he is not American. If he were, it would be no problem for the state to keep him locked up for as long as they wanted, (and even if you’re a foreigner as seen so often without ever facing any charges) could be jailed and smeared as a sex offender for possessing photos of his own nude-in-the-tub children if his partner wants to get rid of him. If he were an overseas American, his constitutional rights do not apply suddenly anymore either if apprehended by local police on ‘requests’ from Washington. Of course, Assange has been arrested ‘in absentia’ now to circumvent any of that and the world is ‘urged’ to arrest him, just like Polanski, who [also] refused to return to the States to be sentenced there and they simply slammed him with a Red Notice in 2005 since he is oh so dangerous to any ‘children’ or women. Funny thing is, the Interpol motto goes: “The [wanted] person should be considered innocent until proven guilty.” Not in America they’re not. “Fugitives pose a serious threat to public safety worldwide. They are mobile and opportunistic; they frequently finance their continued flight from the law through further criminal activities, which may result in criminal charges in more than one country.” The last time I checked, film making was neither dangerous to the public, nor criminal – unless they’re cheap sex flicks Lewis appeared in.
It’s clear that governments keep messing with the populace and can sexually assault us at airports or even bus terminals without any charges possible, with their dangerous radiation full-body scanners and very intrusive pat-downs as ‘alternative’ from strangers who could be real rapists or paedophiles, to ‘soften’ people up to endure anything the government will impose on them for [false] ‘security reasons’ in the future, while some poor sod gets jailed for having had sex with his underaged girlfriend. Telling the truth these days is highly dangerous while liars get away with murder and most of all women by claiming rape and ‘abuse’, and a little ‘accident’ or open assassination is not out of the question in Assange’s case, since people even demanded that in Polanski’s in their fascist overreaction. While some other idiot seriously proposed the French should have their police slam Polanski with more charges to secure an arrest and then ship him off to LA, such bullshit only shows the [lacking] intelligence in some people with most originating in the US who don’t even know where France is, since they live their shallow little government regulated lives with their shallow little TV soaps blasted into their homes, trashy celebrity and ‘reality’ shows, mashing up their little brains some more. Of course, no one over there ever read the interviews Polanski gave to any French magazine or TV show, or Emmanuelle, or they’d been more informed since years in fact of what really happened, the more civilised and understanding French however accepted. Emmanuelle had given interviews right after his rearrest too, and the French all ‘got it’, since this case was never out of their public eye everyone knew of, and that this pursuit of Polanski was and still is pure vindictiveness. As far as Interpol looking for Polanski, I seriously doubt they do since they never bothered before, plus, their headquarters are located in Lyon, France. Unlike in the USA, you cannot buy a judge or a police officer in France, they are not elected, but have to actually work for their promotions.
Had Sharon never been murdered, she and Polanski would no doubt still be together, had raised their by now forty year old son, and none of this never-ending sex scandal nightmare and unprecedented media vilification had ever taken place to be perpetuated by power-hungry DAs – but because of some demented wanna-be musician and his murderous girl gang, they brutally took that dream away in an appalling bloodbath – to forever haunt Polanski. He said himself, that he always wanted a family, but that it wasn’t to be, until two decades later and he had found Emmanuelle to raise that new family, and finally find deserved peace within their unconditional love. Devoted children and a loving wife, who said once that she loved him not only because he protected her and has nothing to recriminate him for, but that she preferred an older, more sophisticated man who could teach her [about] life, not manipulate her, (also negating that Polanski manipulated his women, or in fact some had said so outside liar Lewis obviously) and men her own age would be like babies to her. Returning that love and knowledge, it would help him weather another storm of ugly lies and vicious attacks many years later. While Ms Geimer could raise her own family in tropical oblivion and carefree happiness much earlier and ever since outside a few media sieges, Polanski had to deal with more repulsive attacks that were to wane before they became evermore dangerously vicious spreading throughout the Internet after his rearrest, following many a meaningless affair outside those more meaningful we know of before he settled down with beautiful actress and popular singer-to-be Emmanuelle, and found that final harbour of safety and love within her, not to feel like a fugitive anymore, as he put it once. She will no doubt never desert him, and neither will their children.
After Polanski had emerged once more in public after his release, November 30th, looking recovered from his ordeal of a very long detention which all in all amounts to nearly a year now, worries about and efforts to finish his Ghost [Writer] film and future uncertainties, smiling at the press, he joined the crowd in the chic Café de Flore, in the district of St-Germain-des-Pres in Paris. It was to celebrate twenty years of ‘The Rule of the Game’ journal led by philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, who was very supportive during his legal troubles in Switzerland, where Polanski had published his thank you message for all the support and the famous, ‘I can remain silent no longer’ post to blast the LA courts, or rather Cooley and his vindictive lot. And, many famous TV and film personalities have made the trip to join him: Alain Delon, Pierre Berge, Simone Veil, Thierry Ardisson, Bernard Lavilliers, Lionel Jospin, Umberto Eco, Denis Podalydès amongst others hardly anyone knows in the US. But who, really, was a ‘celebration’ other than Roman Polanski at the café, who said [that], “Bernard-Henri Lévy became a true friend.” Arielle Dombasle (from Tess), was visibly moved to see the guests being excited for him. This is the third time since his release last July that Polanski had made a public appearance in Paris after appearing at the Cinematheque last October and at the Jazz Festival at Montreux to see Emmanuelle sing. While his wife had given another interview to [US based] Harper’s Bazaar mid November in Paris, it is written in a partly not too neutral way, again, of course, regurgitating the [incorrect] case ‘details’, still giving the impression as if Polanski had admitted to ‘having had his way with her (the girl) while she was high on Quaaludes’ kind of ‘leading’ phrasing, when that was never proven – and certainly not true either – still calling Ms Geimer a ‘victim’, when she never saw herself like that either.
When Seigner met with the [female] journalist once before in mid October, Polanski had been free for exactly three months she writes. “It has been an extremely difficult period for us, and especially the kids,” Emmanuelle says with characteristic directness. “Especially prison, which was horrible (and every time they visited Polanski was taken to a nearby police station to see them, which had never been allowed in the US). The house arrest in Switzerland was more bearable. We’d go on weekends to visit, even if the first few days were a circus with all the press.” At its worst, last year October, when Polanski was still in prison, the ordeal drove the normally unflappable actress to attack a paparazzo with her motorcycle helmet near her family’s Paris home who would not let her be. Otherwise, Seigner shut herself in with her kids, venturing out into the public eye for only a few performances of songs from her first music album Dingue and to petition, along with the Société des Auteurs et Compositeurs Dramatiques, to get Polanski freed. But, says Seigner of the case and details, (the interviewer phrased as, ‘the crime and trial’ despite the fact that there never was a trial and to have sex is hardly a crime unless you’re in the US). “If people knew the real story – not everything that’s written by the press, who know nothing about this story – I think that they would have another opinion entirely. It’s an extremely complicated story. It’s been a long time since I’ve read all the idiotic things that are written.” Indeed – apart from all that hateful slander. It obviously has affected her own career too. “I really couldn’t work,” she says. “I didn’t want to do a film. When my husband was arrested, I had just finished my album, but we decided to wait until February instead of November to release it. I couldn’t have promoted it while he was in prison; that would have been obscene. This has put us in a financial situation that’s not easy.”
So much for the Polanskis being ‘millionaires’ as people think, let alone billionaires, or Polanski hadn’t needed to mortgage their family apartment in Paris to make bail. Even now that Polanski is back home, the family has not thrown a major celebration she says – until Christmas no doubt. “The human brain is bizarre,” Seigner says. “We know that it’s over, but, like with a war wound, returning to normal life takes time. Especially for him.” Indeed – and it all just added to that never-addressed depression he had suffered from for decades already. Still, she is philosophical as she’s always been. “Everything in life, bad or good, makes you change and grow – happily, because if it didn’t, we’d be machines. Much worse things happen to people: cancer, sickness, they lose a child. You can either find unexpected strength or you can fall apart. I’m not one to fall apart.” These recent troubles are not the first time Seigner has taken heat over her paramour. (Because people are just too stupid when it comes to that ‘age’ gap, while not batting a lash over others.) When she was twenty-three, after a courtship that began before Polanski cast her in Frantic (right after he parted with liar-to-be Lewis), her breakout role, the couple got married. Though a Hollywood legend and European household name in film, he was thirty-three years her senior and not free of ‘baggage’ – that ever-deepening depression, Sharon’s horrible death, and of course the case. After Frantic, Seigner continued to work with him, most ‘controversially’ in his sexually explicit 1992 dark comedy Bitter Moon where she appeared nude. But few marriages last as long as theirs especially when it comes to ‘artists’, many also like to ignore. “It’s love,” says Seigner simply. “I don’t know what else to tell you.” Indeed – but who cares about what the ones concerned say, as long as petty little brains can impress their petty little opinions on them all over the www.
Outside of France, Seigner is oddly seen mostly as a femme fatale the journalist writes, (so much for [false] perceptions as it happened often enough in Polanski case when it comes to his films they just love to attribute to his own life, like in fact Bitter Moon, thinking the two engage/d in sleazy BDSM sex games and abuse/d each other like the couple depicted) but she has made unexpected turns too, like an outing as a rock chanteuse with the French band Ultra Orange, and her solo album features a duet with Polanski called, ‘Qui Êtes-Vous?’ (‘Who Are You?’) in which she casts him as a somewhat ‘unwelcome lover’, with his very dark and sexy voice cooing her. “He was a good student,” she says, laughing. “I wanted to reverse our roles a little.” Despite her ‘selective images’, Seigner does not live the corresponding lifestyles and nor does Polanski. “I’m a bit high in my own mind normally,” she says with a laugh. “I’ve never smoked, I don’t drink, and drugs don’t interest me.” Nor does she like Botox, intense workouts, or makeup. (In her daily life she wears none. Just like Sharon in fact never smoked or took drugs let alone while pregnant and was also a natural beauty – whereas the idiots of course thought they engaged in drug-fuelled sex orgies). The same je ne sais quoi is apparent in how Seigner puts herself together. “When my husband won the Palme d’Or in 2002, I wore the same dress two days in a row. My daughter said, ‘Mom! Did you sleep in your dress?’ But I think it’s cool to wear the same thing. I have to feel comfortable. I think I’ve arrived at a place in my life now where I can offer more,” she says. “This car is getting back on the road.” Indeed, and it will never break down after the man in her life had indeed taught her about life, and love – for her husband and their children, no matter what the dumb ignorami say or want.
Coming back to the much-acclaimed Ghost [Writer], on December 4th it was said that it could steal the show at this year’s edition of the European Film Awards, the Continent’s version of the Oscars, after the movie garnered seven nominations for a gala ceremony in Tallinn, Estonia. After one might have expected that Polanski would not want to visit there in case he may scoop some awards in fear to end up in prison again, Estonian authorities however said that Polanski could attend the Tallinn ceremony unhindered, noting that under the Baltic state’s law the statute of limitations in the case had long expired, just like in Poland. However, now with the ceremony over, Polanski passed on that assurance, after The Ghost [Writer] won a whopping six out of the seven nominations, to add to the Silver Bear he had bagged for best director at the Berlin Film Festival in January already he could not attend. The movie won another deserved best director prize for Polanski, best actor for the Ghost himself Scotsman Ewan McGregor, best screenwriter went jointly to Brit Robert Harris and Polanski, best production designer to German Albrecht Konrad, best composer to Frenchman Alexandre Desplat’s superb score, while his compatriot film editor Herve de Luze won the production designer prize. “You have awarded a truly European venture. This is too much… thank you very much to all my peers,” Polanski said in an acceptance speech through a Skype connection from an unknown location, but most likely his home in Paris. “I wish to thank – before anything – this wonderful crew I had. It was a truly European venture.” Indeed, so who needs any Americans to make better films. It was not the first time that he has received recognition from the European Film Academy, since he was honoured with another lifetime achievement award in 2006 in Warsaw, and of course at the so in/famously misused Zürich ceremony last year.
Asked about Polanski’s absence on Saturday, organiser Tiina Lokk told Estonian television: “Would you have wanted us to become famous for turning Polanski in?” Exactly – told you no one will make that same mistake again. While some speculate as to why Polanski did not visit Estonia despite no dangers to see another prison from the inside there, this might answer it; Polanski’s used the very popular Internetworking application Skype which was very welcomed by locals, since it had initially been developed by a trio of Estonian programmers. There you go, I’m sure he just wanted to express his gratitude in more than one way since Polanski would know things like this, and his smiling face was seen on a giant screen. Polanski’s awards were accepted at the ceremony in Tallinn by his British co-producer Timothy Burrill. “Obviously I’m thrilled for Roman,” he told the BBC News website after the event in Estonia’s very chilly capital city. McGregor sent his own thanks through another Internetworking site, who had spoken to the BBC in April about his role in the film: “He [Polanski] went through a period of trauma during post-production on the film, and the fact he was editing it from jail did not make it any easier.” Indeed, and NO one else could have handled that much pressure under these very difficult circumstances but Polanski. Burrill also played down the suggestion that The Ghost Writer’s success represented a vote of ‘solidarity’ for Polanski following his recent legal travails. “I don’t think people think like that,” he said. “I think people just like the film.” His sentiments were echoed by its German production designer Konrad, who said Polanski’s movie was ‘a film first of all, a piece of craftsmanship’. Correct.
Even if there had been some sort of ‘special solidarity’, it only proves that they also don’t believe he raped anyone and that is their way of conveying that sentiment, through and by honouring his art, especially after Ms Geimer’s repeat demand to see the charges dismissed and case finally dropped, and that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Of course, the majority of coverage about the plenty awards for The Ghost that in fact set a precedent for the most category wins awarded by the EFA for one film, keep it neutral and to the facts, with some touching on why he ‘wouldn’t’ visit Estonia – though I think it’s the heavy snow more than anything – repeating that Polanski was freed after the Swiss government declined to deport him to the US, conveniently omitting however that they also had said that the statute of limitation in this case has long expired and they would not arrest him, despite Estonia having also an extradition treaty with the US. But, others just had to rip it all apart with their usual nasty defamations, in their splendid waste of time hacking away on their keyboards with derogative commentaries. Sometimes I think the Internet was only invented for lonely people with no life who have nothing constructive to offer but their little tirades, in order to find some sort of meaning to their sad little existence, where they can only be happy if they can go on ranting about people they have absolutely no clues about. Polanski is the toast of the film world, once again, jetting about the most exciting cities in Europe ever since he left the US despite that sticky Red Notice, generally living up his golden years in deserved peace and recognition surrounded by good friends and loyal colleagues, his loving family as few can ever hope to achieve, who had to deal with such nasty rape accusations and endless slander as he had. And here they are, typing their bitter little words into their bitter little blogs and braindead comments. What sad little persons they are – jealous and spiteful – just like Cooley and his rotten lot.
Someone said (with very bad spelling I corrected that makes no sense but shows the twisted mindset of that person): ‘He was defended in his crime-s-plural, because he raped many women, because he was Jewish. Most, if not all of his victims were gentiles. Polanski was never an artist: had it been fashionable, lucrative, and profitable to be assembling CD cases, that is what he would have been doing. His motivation to make movies was for the “outer things” and was an exterior motivation’. I wonder where all these many other ‘gentile victims’ are, and making movies has never been an ‘exterior motive’, but his driving ambition and most certainly was ‘lucrative’ beyond any other job. People like this deluded little brain keep yabbling on about Polanski’s oh so ‘heinous crime/s’, but ignore the actually raped women and children globally, even those in their own backyards. Polanski’s work stands supreme, no matter the ‘morality’ of their maker. Even a final conviction doesn’t devalue his movies, though I highly doubt he will ever be formally sentenced TO be convicted. If we wanted to boycott works by truly or merely perceived ‘immoral’ artists, we’d be left with virtually none. Half the people commenting seem all too ready to start throwing Polanski’s apparent oh so dominant negative side/s on the pyre as if they are fact, while ignoring everything else – constantly defining him by this one event of three decades ago, while demanding final release and reprieve had it been their own action. But, intellectual honesty to grasp any of this is unlikely to be a salient characteristic of someone capable of posting such a pathetically cretinism comment as this one above, who’ll probably quite happily trot out the familiar threadbare assemblage of dimwitted misinterpretations of the facts that to feeble minds like him, might pass for reasoned argument and fact. So, after that mega bullshit, I went to clean my mind by watching the classic Dance of the Vampires. To celebrate the hibernal season of winter it depicts so beautifully. With beautiful Sharon.
Having revisited some of the old articles on the Polanski case from last year and early this year when the heated discussions, or rather mindless diatribes, were still broiling ad nauseum all over the globe, the more objective and correct, the really crappy and nasty ones, with their entire pro and contra commentaries, half truths and deliberate fabrications, I came across some more braindead comments like, Polanski only was released because he’s a Zionist and the Zionists have helped him, or that he could bribe himself out of this one again – though he’s not a Zionist and did not bribe anyone. But anyhow, let them believe such crock of shite till it turns solid. I don’t remember all this über hysteria, and I don’t remember all these immensely busybodying ‘commentators’ falling over each other online, who suddenly crawled out the woodwork mounting an unending campaign of hatred to ‘ensure the paedophile paid for his crimes’ before he was rearrested, with half these people not ever having seen any of his films or even knew who he was, especially in the States. Such broad brush stroke attacks, of course, are posited with no authority beyond the writers’ angry, unsupported dogmatic assertions. I got the impression that no one really gave a toss about the case anymore and that it had largely been forgotten, but now everyone had suddenly piled on the bandwagon spouting their tuppence worth or tasteless tripe to be part of this exploding online witch hunt. Just because Polanski had a damaged reputation ever since Tate’s murder, it doesn’t mean that journalists or bloggers can publish false stories about him and go on ranting their bullshit as if it were factual, but because he cannot sue them, and mostly ignored all the lies bar the one about Sharon shortly after her death only come to light a few years back, they will continue to his dying day. With all the repetitive comments on mostly US sites, it was hard to find one that tops the rest, but I have voted for some to represent and receive an award for signifying the epitome of über BULLSHIT. Here they are (with my interpolations):
‘Next time at least try glancing at the widely available facts before you make assumptions about the victim’s behavior. Polanski approached her mother under the guise of hiring the girl for a photo shoot of the European edition of Vogue. (No ‘guise’ or ‘pretence’ I’m afraid, since THEY had ask HIM after Vogue Hommes had asked Polanski. So much for ‘available facts’.) Once there, he talked her into posing nude in a hot tub. (Unless you have a bathing suit, you usually go into a tub naked she could have refused.) Then he tried to make advances on her and she resisted. (That’s what she tells us but was never proven, and the course of events refutes that entirely.) He then forced her to drink alcohol laced with drugs to make her more compliant (not quite correct either, and in fact the other way round – she took the unlaced champagne herself, then the Quaalude much later both by her own hands on her own free will, which btw. is NOT a ‘date rape’ drug as others have called it in their own stupidity, and only then did she get into the Jacuzzi) and proceeded to vaginally, orally (no, she never claimed he orally penetrated her) and anally rape her, over her continued protests to stop and let her go home. (That’s what she tells us, again, which could not be corroborated by the actual course of events, medicinal evidence, the doctor’s, Huston’s and Polanski’s own statements.) And he filmed his sex acts with her. (Oh if only! OR WE IN FACT WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED! Where the hell do these deluded people get this bullshit from I ask.) This is a full-on kidnapping (really? She could have called her mother again to fetch her, simply leave plenty of times, or there in fact had been ‘kidnapping’ or false imprisonment charges), rape and child porn predator case. (If it had been ‘child porn’, you dope, they had charged him with that, and one incident of underage sex is hardly predatory.) Polanski is a pedophile and a monster, period. (Another imbecile who has NO clues what a paedophile is, and ‘monster’? Funny how the ‘victim’ never called him that, but I’m sure ‘you’ know better.) His talent or childhood experiences as well as the behavior of the judge or attorneys are all irrelevant to that fact.’
Polanski’s artistic aptitude or past have nothing to do with any of it, true, though I’m sure others would like their own traumas taken into consideration when judging them. This particularly sad commenter is just another one-dimensional dehumanising detractor who simply disregards any judicial misconduct when it come to others, yet, had ‘they’ been done to in the same manner, they’d be crying like a baby and call for justice before they run the same from the corrupt courts that had railroaded them. Such people are deluded fabricators and blind condemners of the worst kind, who revel in the twisted figments of their sordid and most of all duped imagination, their hateful and [self-]obsessed narrative as the little nobodies they are – losers like Lewis. One comment went so far to say, ‘Rosemary’s Baby was directed by Roman Polanski, his wife was Sharon Tate, who was murdered by Manson, and her baby was cut out; leaves you to think Manson thought her baby was Satan’s child’. Apart from the fact that their baby son was not cut from Sharon, Manson did not murder her personally and had no interest in Satanism either they had accused Polanski of. These people keep inventing and spreading falsehood, condemning and lying about others to help justify their pathetic little existence they can only perpetuate online in safe anonymity, and yet are awarded by thousands who agree with them. Such people of course never question the outpour of media stories, or accusers like Lewis, when it’s so easy to find her old interviews to see that she had said the very opposite years back. Another truly disturbing article by a man had this to say, who freely admitted to turning to abusing others in turn as the drug addicted alcoholic he became after his apparent own childhood abuse, projecting all his pitiful self-reflective pain and resulting self-hatred onto Polanski, after people seem to have ‘forgiven’ him because of his ‘ordeals’, but deny Polanski his own or ‘her’ forgiveness, or any other ‘abuser’, rapist or paedophile who suffered their own terrible childhood/teen abuse.
‘If you look at the actual crimes he committed, the deal was shockingly inappropriate. (Ever wondered ‘why’? Because, if it had been ‘crimes’, they had him plead to a higher charge, but such logic eludes them ALL.) If this happened today he would have been charged with probably a dozen separate crimes, including separate counts for rape, illegal distribution of substances (there was nothing ‘illegal’ about champagne or Quaalude. Her own family should have been charged with ‘child abuse’ for doing exactly that – letting her get drunk and take drugs) production of child pornography, at least 2 counts of sodomy, etc. (But it’s not ‘today’, and there was NO evidence of ANY penetration, child pornography was not applicable then, and he WAS charged with everything possible.) This wasn’t a simple case of “sex with a minor” – this was a major set of crimes that others would have gotten seriously hard crime for. (I’m sure YOU know better than the prosecution then.) Anyone defending him should be ashamed of themselves and I certainly hope they are not responsible for any children of their own. (Why always this idiotic, ‘you’re [also] a potential rapist and/or paedophile or child abuser [even of your own kids] if you’re trying to explain things?) From where I sit, the rape of a child is absolutely the equivalent of first-degree murder. Roman Polanski is a murderer, the murderer of a child. (Hyperbole BULLSHIT anyone? Murder is murder, not underage sex or even actual rape. Why do they always over-dramatise one act to trivialise another much more serious one? Why always blow it all out of all proportions? Longterm abuse, torture and actual murder are much worse.) For people to even hint that Polanski is some kind of harried martyr is despicable. (Oh, YOU made him into that martyr by wallowing in YOUR mindless attacks on him others in turn need to fight, but won’t allow him his own ordeals or the slightest defence others again have to take up for him.) Just ask any one of the thousands upon thousands of children who have been raped. (And what exactly has Polanski got to do with them?) Just ask me.’
Sorry, Polanski came in contact with countless ‘children’ or teenagers, and NONE ever cried rape outside liar Lewis and Ms Geimer who never said he ‘raped’ her. And no, we’re not asking ‘you’ at all, since your experience has ZERO to do with what happened between Polanski and Ms Geimer – absolutely nothing. It’s more than disturbing that he compares his experience with the case, since they are situated within a set of completely different circumstances, and his twisted attacks on Polanski are nothing but sad attempts to ignore what HE made of himself, not Polanski, not even his real abuser, BUT himself – just like Lewis did. No, you don’t count as the pathetic accuser turned abuser who wallows in blaming other people of what you did yourself and should name yourself a murderer too then, but calls Polanski a monster. People like that cannot ever be objectively analysing any other case, they just have to bring in their own experiences and accuse an entirely unrelated ‘perpetrator’ to exact ‘revenge’ on their own they could not get at, paid for his own attack on him. Or conversely, simply cannot stay unbiased because of their experience even if their attacker was sent down for it, and best of all, in turn doesn’t see anything wrong in perpetrating the same crimes that were done to him because of that. Of course, he’s completely off the mark as to what Polanski actually did, and even if Ms Geimer herself would tell him it wasn’t rape, he’d not ever listen to her either. He’s completely consumed by HIS ordeal and actions he came to loath in his self-absorbed whining and uses Polanski as a punching bag. I saw such irrational overreactions often enough over the last year. The blind attacks – it’s pitiful. He obviously has no clues what a paedophile is either like most people, or simply redefines the term to fit Polanski into that bracket I saw done countless times.
He projects all his pain and abuse onto Polanski, even Ms Geimer who never experienced anything he ‘sees’ in her, takes her claims as indisputable fact so he can hate on Polanski. To call Polanski a murderer is the over-reactionary manifestation of his sick blindness, projected abuse, his utterly exaggerated victimhood he can, ‘must’, relive through her. The fact that he failed in his life as he described it, only makes him accuse Polanski all the more because he is a very successful artist, instead of actually looking at HIMSELF and what HE did in contrast. But of course he cannot live with that, himself, his abuse of others after his own abuse had led him to it as he puts it, and needs all that blind hatred, jealousy and extreme diatribe directed at Polanski to make his own trauma and actions less horrible. Rather than condemn his real violator/s, and most of all himself as the serial abuser, the same monster he takes Polanski for, he however is much worse, and the commenters only pitied him, instead of condemned him of his own abusing, rubbing only more balm into his self-inflicted wound instead of a pinch of truth to actually wake him up. These people are eaten up by their experiences, their irrational emotions and loathed re/actions, are slaves to them, their confused feelings, their illogical attacks on others. Realising that utter destruction of their life, they need to find a more convenient target to attack that cannot fight back – someone like Polanski – instead of actually looking into the mirror. Like Lewis. Such people seriously need counselling, but I know too well they will not get it (or seek it) because the system is too interested in pandering to their little fantasies of victimhood.
Another utterly ‘rape obsessed’ female blogger I came across who only became ‘active’ now long after the events, said: ‘Read about Roman Polanski’s brutal pre-meditated, forced drugged, and total body rape of a virgin child here.’ Apart from hyperbolically bad grammar, ‘total body rape’? Sounds just like ‘anal sodomy’ in its best tautological overkill rhetoric and is more than bullshit anyhow. And ‘virgin’ – ‘child’? The doctor seems to differ on these points, and so did everyone else, even Ms Geimer. But I guess people like that utterly possessed blogger not half his age know better. Another thing I noticed is that commenters simply rehash/ed others’ faulty assumptions and fabrications, basically accepting and believing them without the slightest evidence or proof, sometimes utterly ignoring what was actually written in the original article or even the court transcripts. Such utter contempt for the facts, wallowing in their petty lies and pathetic hatred, is truly alarming. Some thought by citing Ms Geimer’s fake interviews that were paraphrased from the original more pro-Polanski mentions, they could stoke the fires of hatred some more, presenting them as the real thing. Especially when it contains words like, ‘creepy’, ‘scary’, or ‘he took innocence from me’, not knowing that’s not what she really said. What’s even more shocking is the fact as to what people accept as ‘rape’ these days, utterly trivialising what actual rape is. Technically it is only forcible intercourse by any means – but they would believe that if someone would want a condom used and didn’t, and afterwards the woman cries rape because of no condom and see nothing wrong with that, only shows how feminism-brainwashed people are by now. She could have told the man to wear protection before he ever touched her, but it seems that such logic however evades the disempowered little feminist brain, when this is as much on them as it is the man.
People are seriously deranged by saying that someone who continues sex after consent is suddenly withdrawn and needs a minute to recover from that ‘change of heart’, is guilty of flat-out rape. Men never cried rape if the woman didn’t want a condom or stopped the sex. Besides, how can sex be first consensual, and afterwards no more just because ‘he’ didn’t use a condom after BOTH in fact had started and continued with the sex, as it’s claimed in the second Assange case? Why didn’t the woman get charged with not ‘insisting’ on a condom if she wanted one? Or, what if HE had demanded a condom but not her and he then calls it rape afterwards because he had to endure intercourse without protection, would ‘he’ ever be taken seriously? I highly doubt that. And in fact neither should the woman for such preposterous accusation that makes any real sexual assault what exactly? Rape-rape-rape? It’s ridiculous enough that were you to take the face of a prepubescent child and put that picture on the nude body of an identifiably fully developed adult, it is child porn punishable identical to if you took a photo of the actual child, despite no actual ‘child body’ depicted, but to call a ‘leaking’ or missing condom rape is even more farcical and nullifies actual rape beyond all sense. Some already have jumped on the hyperbole bandwagon as they did with Polanski and simply call Assange a rapist now, though we know it’s all bullshit, that he should be grabbed and brought back to US by all means, saying his WikiLeaks ‘can cause tragic loss of lives, careers and do damage to US foreign policy,’ (other than doing it all to start with themselves, obviously, and in fact have killed plenty innocent people since centuries globally) and that he and his crew deserves to be hung publicly. There is no proof that the leaks have endangered or killed anyone.
Such hyped-up lynch mob online trolls declare that ‘this threatens hard-working and good career diplomats, friends, families who risk being kicked out of countries they are working in, and is as threatening to the wellbeing of US as a nuke.’ Sorry, Assange and his staff are only messengers who didn’t steal anything, or you’d also need to charge the papers that published some of the logs too. Poor trolls, live in your nonsense worlds of such delusions, since no one will or has been put in any danger because of the leaks no matter what Obama says, except Assange himself, since all names had been redacted and ambassadors surely aren’t people whose names are kept secret. The only damage done to anyone is by the government. Now that Assange is in the news by the minute and Polanski is out after his mega wins, bloggers however compare both his and Polanski’s case for their striking similarities, even the same ‘charges’, while these two feminists who accused him are just another dirty smear campaign duo à la Lewis and Vogelhut. That is what it means to live in a ‘rape culture’ where man-hating feminists will do anything to promote that myth and keep lying about rape. And it, again, is the US who keep calling loudly for the ‘leaker’s’ head, just as they had with Polanski. Swedish sex laws are even more twisted than those in the US, where ANYTHING it seems is ‘rape’, since this is the first time I have ever heard of something so absurd as this broken condom being ‘rape’, or sexual molestation if none was used by BOTH partners, that it warrants to call on Interpol rather than to seek out major criminals who do real damage. But I guess a bust or missing condom is more dangerous than any terrorist, with two grown women incapable of seeing to their lover actually wearing one. How much more disempowered and STUPID can anyone get, it’s laughable – though the imbecilic feminists will no doubt call this ‘girl power’, rather than supreme idiocy.
Sweden prides itself with being the most gender equal country in the world, but it’s all a big misandruous scam with extremely farcical anti-sex laws. The Swedish government is jailing harmless men for alleged ‘sex crimes’ against women and children without any proof at all, like they love practicing it in the States, with over 5000 men and only 294 women serving jail time in Sweden (KVV 2009). In the international statistics of convictions for ‘rape’, though obviously not actual forcible rape, Sweden is number two, after Lesotho in Africa which HAS actual rape cases. Still, the über feminazi state of Sweden is not content, since now they are proposing a law that would outlaw sex without a written contract. No joke, it will happen sooner than later. And then all men are fucked – literally – unless IKEA will be giving away condoms along with whatever they have on offer next to avoid more men ending in prison for unprotected sex. But never ever the oh so helpless women taking part in it, oh no. One reason never to go to Sweden – their sex laws are the epitome of evil misandry worse than what they have in the US. Meaning, no man will have a sane voice of defence left anymore or any rights in regards to sex in the future in Sweden, but carry all the responsibilities, since females are oh so confused that they cannot even tell men to wear a freaking condom and need law enforcement help with it afterwards. I call it ludicrous, a shameful waste of time and money – and just a ruse to indict Assange so that the US can put their foot into the door and charge him with espionage or conspiracy. With Interpol being too busy coaxing people like Assange out of hiding since they obviously couldn’t care less about any real criminals, they must run after someone who fell foul of some über ridiculous Sweden-exclusive sex laws divided into three categories of ‘rape’, where consensual but unprotected sex can lead to prison. If the woman suddenly decided she wanted a condom – but failed to in fact simply demand one. But as we know, some women are just too stupid to do that.
This ‘condom offence’ apparently involves up to two years in the joint, mind you. It’s utter insanity. Even prosecutors admit that the charges filed against Assange are embarrassing and dumb. So women bear no responsibilities for sex in Sweden anymore either, but can cry rape afterwards, instead of demanding a condom. So Mr Leak forgot to wear condom in one case and in the other he, well, leaked, which is why Interpol needs to arrest him so badly, since this puts US diplomats in grave danger of contracting more, well, leaks. Funny thing is, this farce is obviously not actual rape as everyone was made to believe or made out to be actual rape, with some even saying he looks like a pervert as they did in Polanski case. As if that’s visible or therefore true, again, simply taking media coverage as facts when the actual facts are out there too, which has more twists, turns and conspiracy theories than even the Polanski case. Sex without a condom is apparently only an ‘offence’ in über sexist feminist Sweden, not in the [yet] more civilised UK or even the ‘hard-on-sex’ US. It’s outrageous and extremely damaging how sex is mindlessly punished. Plus, if it’s ‘technically illegal’ to have consensual sex without a condom suddenly only ‘afterwards’, how is it only the guy’s fault? I’m not sure this law even exists, since it supports pure double standards unworthy of the Swedes. It would be a bullshit law that gives women a free pass and punishes only men again – as usual. Rape however will continue to be redefined for rape hysteria empowerment purposes by these feminazis everywhere until the term rape is completely meaningless. This feminist anti-sex bullshit spreading universally is getting beyond ludicrous now. It is destroying men while men are watching powerlessly as men execute their very own with their very own fascist laws.
Quickly an update on Assange – since I don’t plan on devoting an entire article on him with plenty people doing that already just nicely, but want to highlight his case as another high-profile example of becoming a feminist cry rape victim trapped in the clutches of world politics, legal shenanigans and in this case highly ridiculous Swedish sex laws that make a mockery of actual rape. British police took Assange into custody on December 8th following his [stupidly] surrendering himself willingly and acted on that Red Notice. He appeared at a Magistrates Court where he was denied bail on grounds of being a ‘flight risk’, despite the fact he handed himself, having sworn that he will fight extradition like Polanski did. The Swiss said the same about Polanski being a ‘high flight risk’, and look how nicely he stayed put for over half a year at his chalet. The Swedish authorities told the London court the first complainant, ‘Miss A’, let’s call her by her real name as a false rape accuser, Anna Ardin, (the radical feminist who wrote a ‘handbook’ on how to cry rape, mind you, she of course deleted), said she became a ‘victim of unlawful coercion’ on the night of August 14th in Stockholm, after complaining about a split condom only, and that Assange had broken it deliberately. How do you do that while having intercourse? Assange is accused of ‘using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner’, and there I was thinking that’s how sex in fact works, also called the missionary position. The second charge alleged Assange ‘sexually molested’ ‘Miss W’, or Assange-groupie Sophia Wilen, by having sex with her without a condom when it was her ‘express wish’ one should be used, but had sex with him anyway after only asking what he was wearing and did not stop him in any form when he apparently said ‘I’m wearing you’. That’s not molestation, let a lone rape, but a stupid woman who could have said no, and that after she had told the police that she only wanted to ask Assange to submit to a STD test but couldn’t get back in contact with him and then it suddenly was rape. Sure, since the police deal with medial issues, and not the hospital. Sweden is strange. The cops then turned that into rape as expected, which was the reason that charge was later dismissed. No one can be that dumb to ask the cops for ‘advise’ on HIV, rather than seek the nearest doctor. The third charge claimed Assange ‘deliberately molested’ Wilen on August 18th ‘in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity’ – which in Sweden means something like poking your partner in the back in bed to wake them up for more sex. Ludicrous the least. Poor Swedish men.
The fourth charge accuses Assange of having sex with Wilen on August 17th without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home, who in fact contacted Ardin and was ‘persuaded’ by her to go to the police where a cop friend of hers waited to interview her, when before it was only no-condom consensual sex with nothing about being asleep, and then it suddenly said she was in fact half awake. How the hell anyone (sober and not unconscious) can not notice being poked by a penis is utterly beyond me and the biggest farce I have ever heard. He’d needed to pry open her legs, and she didn’t notice? Or that he fumbled his piece inside? Or the in and out part? Sure. Some might call it a nice wakeup call by being seduced into sex, if true, and not behave like a pesky child and moan about it afterwards. No way can you do that at any rate, since no lubrication of any kind allows for ANY penetration in the first place. See then ludicrous sodomy charge Polanski had to deal with. The fact that feminists believe in all that pathetic ‘I’m such a poor little powerless victim’ nonsense is certainly no surprise. These are nothing but laughable trumped-up charges brought upon Assange by some vindictive feminist groupies who were upset that he was screwing both of them at the same time, nothing else. They willingly had sex with him even after he didn’t use a condom, and then continued to spend time with him after the deed was done and then Wilen even paid him a train ticket to get to her place, but was pissed off that he spent ‘too much time on his computer’, at which point the ‘romantic mood was gone’. But had sex with him anyway. When they broadcasted their sexual adventure to their social circles after both having managed to get him into bed knowing exactly who he was since they attended his lecture, the two decided to exact revenge and should be incarcerated for crying rape. Of course they tried to delete the evidence and it is clear that this is a political witch hunt now since the allegations were renewed on the behest of that Swedish politician and an arrest warrant issued with Interpol called upon, right after Assange had revealed the diplomatic communiqués following the WarLogs – if that’s not political manipulation then I don’t know what is.
Mind you, Ardin, who had invited him to talk at that forum and let him stay at her place, is in fact a self-professed lesbian – so why would she sleep with a ‘man’? To cry rape afterwards, of course. Now that Assange gave himself up to English police who promptly took him into custody on that dodgy European Arrest Warrant submitted after the ludicrous Red Notice and the British authorities acted on it, he first was refused bail on December 7th, then was granted bail on December 14th, and after he went back to Wandsworth prison to decide on December 16th if to grant the appeal or not on behalf of the Swedes lodged by the Crown Prosecution Service which was finally overturned by the High Court to roaring applause and he was set free only to be put under strict house arrest, like Polanski was, here’s something that’s rather disturbing concerning Polanski: trash online gossip rag TMZ reported December 14th: ‘Polanski was just dragged into a case involving a 1968 Playboy Playmate who recently shot her husband in the back, and that officials believe Polanski may have given her the gun… 30 years ago’. Then the ‘article’ continues in the typical as-if-fact rhetoric: ‘Here’s where it gets creepy – sources close to the case tell TMZ, it all started back in 1969… the night before Charles Manson orchestrated the infamous murder of Sharon Tate… Polanski’s then wife. We’re told Playmate Angela Dorian – currently in custody for the attempted murder of her husband in October (2010) – was close friends with Tate… and they even spent the evening together before the slaughter. After Tate was killed – sources tell us the famous director was so worried about Dorian, he gave her his handgun for protection… a Walther PPK .380, just like James Bond (used). Fast forward 31 years… sources tell us investigators believe Dorian used the very same gun to shoot her husband after an argument turned violent. As we first reported, she faces up to life in prison if convicted’ – Now, the last time I checked 2010 minus 1969 equals 41 years, not 31. That’s what you get when you drop out of junior highschool, and become a dumb online rag ‘reporter’.
First of all, Manson did not ‘orchestrate to murder Tate’, but ‘anyone at that house’ no matter who they are. Secondly, did Dorian claim that she spent the night before with ‘Polanski’, or at Tate’s house? I’m sorry to say that Polanski was in fact still in London and at the time of the murders until a couple of days later, all preserved on film. Plus, according to Polanski himself, he hates guns; he would never have touched one, or given one to Dorian ‘for protection’. Dorian was NOT at the residence the day before or on the day, and she was NOT ‘friends’ with Tate since she was never mentioned in any form in the investigations, and people had quite a habit of saying they had been there, but ‘left before and escaped the carnage’, or ‘would have been there but couldn’t make it’. Dorian played that young woman in Rosemary’s Baby who threw herself out the window. Polanski never even mentioned her in his autobiography even in connection with Rosemary’s Baby in any form or that he gave her ‘his’ gun after the killings. The only time he mentions any guns was in another case where a friend had a gun by her bedside, and he was shocked, and never even touched that one. How much lower can they get with these lies. And according to the inane comments, they even believe it or make fun of the claims, or Polanski. TMZ is a sleazy celebrity rag that promotes just another way of slandering Polanski beyond ANY proof now. With plenty other online rags including even The Telegraph, having repeated this nonsense as fact, now it says the crime is ‘alleged’, though in fact true, and that he DID give her ‘his’ gun. Any proof of that, anyone? Didn’t think so. And even if he had given her ‘his’ gun, if it was registered and legally held, SO WHAT? Maybe they should just check if it really was ‘his’, and stop implicating Polanski in more crimes. Pathetic.
Now nearly mid July 2011, a lot has happened in the world during the six months in which I had no time to update this article. Ms Geimer has given another interview in March to curiously mark the day of her fateful encounter with Polanski, for once without Silver by her side to ‘advise’ her, but said nothing other than what she had before, and that she wishes the case be finally dismissed. That we know is wishful thinking. Polanski was released a year ago now, went on to win several more film awards, has long finished his latest creation God of Carnage and no one talks about him anymore other than in artistic terms, while Cooley deservedly lost the race to become Attorney General off his back. The Polanski case will never be closed or dismissed, while the equally, but differently controversial Assange Sweden case and far more fascinating WikiLeaks affair however is still in full swing after more dramatic twist and turns and revelations than anyone can even dream up. Assange has still not been charged with anything, has defiantly given many interviews and several speeches since he was forced into house arrest, and we all know this case is a farce the US is fully exploiting for their own persecution of him for leaking the TRUTH. My straying into the Assange case took away my time to concentrate fully on this new witch hunt, and his own extradition appeal hearing will in fact be held on the exact same day Polanski was released from his own house arrest, July 12th – tomorrow. If that date is a good or bad omen for Assange has to be seen. I for one wish Assange all the best, support his WikiLeaks cause and fight for freedom of speech, the press and the Internet fully, in ardent hope justice will prevail in his own struggle, and once again, we have to thank radical feminism gone out of hand for a man’s predicament and senseless persecution I hope will be defeated soon – and leave it at that.