17
Sep
10

ROMAN POLANSKI – HE SAID SHE SAID THEY SAID – AN OP END CASE ANALYSIS – PART FOUR

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.

12
Jul
10

ROMAN POLANSKI – HE SAID SHE SAID THEY SAID – THE COMMENTS PART THREE

THE COMMENTS continued.

Vahan

Posted July 12, 2010 at 3.56 PM

Novalis, I couldn’t be anymore relieved that Polanski is a free man once again. And this couldn’t have come at a better time, too (this came just one week after Leslie Van Houten, one of Sharon Tate’s murderers, was denied parole). And I’m also so glad that the Swiss wasn’t stupid enough to fall for the lies of that pathetic and ugly liar Lewis. However, as much as I am happy for him to be freed, I think that there are still some questions that have yet to be answered:

First off, what about that “secret testimony” that explains why Polanski fled? Will they finally allow Gunson to open it?

Secondly, there are still some people out there who believe everything that Geimer said in her grand jury testimony back in 1977 is the truth, and nothing but the truth. They think that the Swiss gave him a pass just because of his celebrity status. I take it that none of them saw the episode of “Biography” on Polanski where Geimer recanted her statements.

And just to make sure, does this mean that Polanski can visit the U.S. and U.K. again if he wanted to?

Lastly, let finish up my thoughts here by stating the obvious: Hollywood sex scandals have been around since like practically the beginning of Hollywood. The earliest one I can think of (and I’m sure you can think of, too) was the time American film director Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle was charged with raping a woman named Virginia Rappe to death. Many people don’t consider the lone witness in the incident, Bambina Maude Delmont, to be a credible source. Not to mention that much like Dr. Larson, who examined Geimer during the Polanski case, the doctor who examined Rappe during the Arbuckle case found no proof of rape. Still, that didn’t stop Delmont from telling the police, and putting Arbuckle in a lot of unnecessary trouble. After three trials, Arbuckle was eventually acquitted, but as a result of the scandal, his works were banned shortly thereafter. Because of this, Arbuckle made films under the alias William Goodrich. The sad part about Arbuckle is that just when he was about to make a successful comeback under his regular name, he died, and barely had a chance to enjoy it.

And I haven’t told you this but I love how the title of this blog is “The Tenant of Chinatown”, named after the very last two films (1974′s “Chinatown” and 1976′s “The Tenant”) that Polanski made before his sex scandal.

Novalis Lore

Posted July 12, 2010 at 6.13 PM

Hi Vahan – yes, I deliberately chose that title – it is indeed a homage to his two great films. Now, from the bottom up – no pun intended – I’ll address your comment.

I’m aware of the disastrous Rappe case, of course, and it’s a good analogy to Polanski’s case – It destroyed the comedian from one moment to the next, utterly innocent of anything they had accused him of. In fact, just to clarify why, here’s a short explanation for others; she died after she had no less than six abortions by the age 16 and a botched abortion is likely what killed her. She wasn’t the virginal saint people made her out to be then. Someone like Lewis. Three trials later Fatty was given an apology and a cleared name, true. Well, not in the papers, but by the court of law. He went underground, and people kept stating that he got away with ‘something’, ‘forgiven but not forgotten’. Sounds familiar? Bar that Geimer never died, (unless you read Reisman’s degenerate filth of accusing Polanski of her near murder!) The media will never be ‘nice’ to anyone. ‘Nice’ doesn’t sell.

Everyone had accused Fatty of having raped her so badly that she haemorrhaged! But not only with his ‘thing’, but a ‘Coke bottle’. BS. Though such trauma can happen with a lot of effort and time and extra ‘abortion tools’ to help that, and sounds more like torture, she perished on another this time botched termination, after she was finally taken to a hospital with high fever. She died there of peritonitis, an acute infection that, in her case, was caused by a ruptured bladder. Why that bladder ruptured would become a matter of great dispute and the most serious importance. The comedian’s ‘sexual attack’ on Rappe, the prosecution argued, had ruptured the victim’s bladder, causing her death. Don’t think so. Reminds me of that nonsense that Polanski anally raped Geimer, twice, without any signs or thrashing and screaming at him. Not likely.

Anyway, secondary peritonitis, caused by bacteria entering the peritoneum through a hole somewhere in the gastrointestinal tract, fits the Rappe case best. She had VD, and while dying, Rappe had told a nurse that she had been having abnormal vaginal discharge for about six weeks. This venereal disease infection then travelled upward into her intestines, and the vomiting then ruptured her already distressed bladder. Dead.

Arbuckle suddenly had come to represent everything that was supposedly wrong with Hollywood. His very name conjured up the worst type of sexual predator, leading to his being the first person to be blacklisted from films. The films in which he starred had been withdrawn from circulation because of his, however undeservedly, sullied reputation. Sounds familiar? Sadly, Arbuckle is often remembered today as ‘the man who raped and killed an actress with a Coke bottle’. Sounds almost like, ‘Polanski the director/child rapist who drugged, raped and sodomised an aspiring model/actress’. ‘Aspiring’? No doubt.

Arbuckle was neither a rapist nor murderer and neither was or is Polanski a rapist and/or paedophile and Geimer certainly [was] no ‘child’ anymore either. It would be more appropriate if both artists were remembered as geniuses of their trade. Those smart enough to think, and lucky enough to see the comedian’s great films, and Polanski’s brilliant movies, will remember Polanski as the man who escaped cruel US injustice, twice now, no matter it bankrupted him,. All for one single sexual adventure. And of course his fight for justice.

Arbuckle loved to make people laugh and he was very good at it. Polanski loved to make films and he was, IS, more than good at it. If ‘The Ghost’ is to be his last film, I doubt, then it’s a fitting swan song oeuvre; he didn’t have a ghost of a chance of merciful justice in this, no matter they rejected the extradition. But nothing much has changed, and those who want to believe her teenage fantasies, rather than the truth and her words of recantation as an adult, so be it. Let them revel in their ignorance and stupidity, their dark rape and sodomy world. I’m sure Geimer’s happy too it’s over – for now.

Many decades ago, on a horrible day, the laughter stopped in Hollywood when Fatty was accused of a horrible thing he never did. Several decades later a horrified Hollywood was in the grip of a horrible tragedy after the brutal Manson killings, accusing the only, distraught survivor of the horrid slayings – Polanski. Madness. Eight years after that, the same still traumatised man gets accused of the most horrible thing a women can do to a man – accuse him of multiple rape. And as if that’s not enough, some failed junkie soft porn has-been comes out decades later to accuse him of even worse things, just so to coax the authorities to extradite him and malign him some more. Good hardly anyone believed her.

I’m sure Polanski needs some time off now, he’s gone already, on his way home, and will take a well-deserved holiday with his family. Then he’ll celebrate his 77th, and return to make God of Carnage he wanted to work on before the Swiss put a nasty wedge in it. But no, Polanski can NOT visit the US or UK again if he wanted to – his status is basically unchanged and he’s back to where he left off before his rearrest, since other countries might want to make the same mistake and arrest him again I’m sure the States would love. I doubt they will, since many more know now at least that he had done his time for unlawful sex, and a perfect reason to flee Rittenband’s arbitrary court when he attempted to punish him twice for it. The only problem is, he and all the others got away with their disgraceful misconducts, smear campaigns and name-calling, since the case is still not litigated to be finally closed for good and he [still] has no legal means to force them to, unless they formally declare him to times served in absentia and he can go before the LA courts to do so as a free man later. But I doubt they will.

As for Gunson’s ‘secret testimony’, which now doesn’t ‘need’ to be opened anymore but others are aware of finally too, it’s nothing more than what we have heard already, that the 42 days at Chino in 1977/8 was Polanski’s entire sentence under the guise of that diagnostic study Rittenband had ab/used as punishment no one had asked for. I’m sure Cooley & Co will not concede to that fact and that Polanski cannot be sentenced ‘again’. All they can do is acknowledge it, that he had served his time already three decades ago, and that the 70 days on Swiss remand must be counted in addition, exceeding the 90 days Rittenband had in mind at any rate.

Though his house arrest cannot be counted in any form, it means the nine months of lost freedom Polanski had to endure for political shenanigans can never be recovered. So all in all a good outcome, but nothing was gained basically since the legal side of the case is still a mess – only more overzealous haters, or conversely wiser supporters, people who see the unacceptable breakdown of justice this case has highlighted, and how corrupt the LA courts really are.

Mishem

Posted July 16, 2010 at 9.07 PM

Novalis – thank you for what you’re doing! I’ve only leafed through your articles first, will do the careful reading now, which might take some time, but you’ve restored my faith in human sanity. After reading, week after week, tons of that “child rapist” bullshit I was beginning to seriously suspect the world has gone mad.

Novalis Lore

Posted July 16, 2010 at 9.30 PM

Not quite the whole world, mishem – only the [self-]obsessed US mainly and the ill-informed in Europe. Most still don’t know what was going on with Polanski at any rate, not now, not then, not ever – and those who do are not necessarily the loudest voices. Only the ignorant haters shout abuse at someone they have absolutely no idea about, don’t want to know better, and those who do, are loyal fans and more objective people who want to know the finer details. Take your time to go through my findings – and thank you for voicing your own better understanding. Feel free to ask me whatever you like.

Maisy

Posted July 19, 2010 at 4.03 AM

Well, before I read your very inspired and inspiring, undeniably highly in-depth analysis, Novalis, all I knew about this case was basically nought. But, the more and more I read myself through your mammoth research, it made more and more sense to me. I had no clear opinions either way for or against Polanski. I only became intrigued by all these self-righteous and apparently more than ill-informed, very nasty comments everywhere, amongst a few sane and more informed voices wedged in between that were just as blindly attacked. That in fact put me more off than to condemn him too like they did. Not my style.

I need empirical proof to form an informed onion in general, I couldn’t get from anywhere, unless I’d researched the complex case myself the way you have. No such time I’m afraid. So, after I went through your amazing and thorough findings, watched that documentary, some interviews of both, read the transcripts and his very important autobiography – and all the interesting comments here by the way – I came to the same conclusion any intelligent person should arrive at; that Geimer basically lied to the grand jury. And her mother/family, in order to look better, get out of it again. Now it’s long gone out of hand on a legal and humane level, and the way he’s been treated since decades now is simply criminal and downright disgusting.

So, was the bereaved and depressed, revered and defenceless director set up for a shakedown by a ‘small-time actress mother’ who couldn’t make it on her own in the business, and therefore allowed her daughter to be photographed at Nicholson’s house? In order to drop the charges of rape/sodomy on him? I’d say that’s a yes. Did the Santa Monica Court conspire to violate Polanski’s rights, including the coaching by a prosecutor to influence egocentric Rittenband, specifically that disgusting Wells with the ‘Oktoberfest’ photo maneuver, on how to handle the director’s sentencing motivated by personal revenge and the judge’s self-important desires for television coverage and more ‘clippings’? And, did that undoubtedly self-serving cop pull the usual witness blackmailing and ‘sodomy’ stunt? I’d say that’s another yes.

In the face of overwhelming medical evidence to discredit Geimer outright, and the fact that her mother set the whole thing up to engineer easy future fame through Polanski, and a big civil payout later, though it only came through 20 years later after she had sued him in 1988 and they took his money in 1998 via the legal backdoor, true, since he of course was indisposed to pay her for shit he never did, the media abuse he had suffered is even more shocking than what they or the courts have done to him, over and over. Or at least rests on the same level of depravity, mutually inflaming each other like witch hunters and their lynch mobs howling for his blood.

I like his films, especially the ones with Deneuve, Kinski and Tate, was aware of her brutal murder, and to watch him crying in pain over her loss is simply heartbreaking.

I would recommend to anyone reading your committed research, no matter it is very substantial, to finally get the idea of what really happened in March 1977, and is still going on behind the LA courtroom doors today – more lies.

He never raped anyone, let alone is a paedophile. People who call him that are dumb scum.

Now that Polanski is ‘free’ again, kudos to Switzerland who’s got enough blood on their US-subservient hands already. I’m glad he’s back with his family, to continue his good work. ‘Justice’, however, would be to ‘make’ him free, not to continue hunting him like a little animal. But if he can live with this, so can I – and can’t wait to see what he’s going to do with God of Carnage. Good luck to him and his family in the future.

Novalis Lore

Posted July 19, 2010 at 5.40 PM

Thanks Maisy – glad I could enlighten you in this matter. And indeed, good luck to him and let’s see what his genius touch will make of God of Carnage.

Maisy

Posted July 19, 2010 at 4.35 PM

I don’t think I have to add anything to what you’ve uncovered with ‘Lewis’, Novalis – she’s an ugly pathetic liar, nothing more.

Novalis Lore

Posted July 19, 2010 at 5.41 PM

I thought you might say that – she’s indeed what you said.

Lewis

Posted July 28, 2010 at 1.26 AM

Great, another liar who needs her 15-minutes of questionable glory. I don’t believe a word bird hut, um, Vogelhut says to be blunt. I saw that video, and no, not a word. I might believe they had sex, but not “that”. Sorry, I don’t buy the “brutal sodomy” angle. It’s getting boring now. And even if they had a bit of “kinky” sex, to cry rape after nearly four decades, is BULLSHIT. It’s clear that this is scumbag Cooley’s handiwork, and even if not, and all she wants it to sell her “sordid book”, to ride on the trend of crying rape, is simply disgusting. Nuff said. NEXT!

Novalis Lore

Posted July 28, 2010 at 4.07 AM

You’re right, Lewis, and the fact that even less people believe Vogelhut, than ‘Lewis’, is proof that people are fed up with this kind of sordid sensationalist BS.

mishem

Posted July 28, 2010 at 5.38 PM

Oh f… I mean, oh good Lord, did you see the news? Another one. Now they will pop up like mushrooms after a rain. The USA will never forgive him for their Swiss fiasco. What else should we expect? God, is there anything we can do? I know he is strong, but there are some limits to what a man can take.

Novalis Lore

Posted July 29, 2010 at 2.41 AM

I included her claims already in the ‘Lewis’ blog, mishem – gonna combine them now. I usually deconstruct any claims on a more scientific/medical basis to debunk such allegations, and she made a few mistakes like Geimer had with her ‘dry double sodomy’ claim that has long been discredited by the medical/witness evidence right then, hence the peal deal because she was underage. Lewis obviously lied since she contradicted herself over the years through her own interviews, and Vogelhut only parroted the sodomy on that base. She didn’t do her homework well enough anyhow; anal sex requires a lot of preparations, and even with amyl, she cleverly brought in, to relax the sphincter, it STILL needs a lot of lubrication – she forgot to mention. Anyone, who engages in anal sex on regular base, as these women want us to believe Polanski had, would know what to do, or infections loom, pain for both and serious injuries, even for the active partner. It’s all BS. She only brought the handcuffs in to make it sound more shocking – she escalated the encounter into BDSM basically.

I’m sure they had sex, but nothing anal related. According to insiders, Polanski was in fact known to shy from that, it wasn’t his ‘thing’ at all because it was too ‘homosexual’, and most importantly, if he’s not using a condom, which she didn’t mention either, (or Geimer) it causes HIV and whatnot else. If he really had anal intercourse all the time without any precautions/preparations as they proclaim, he’d long contracted or died on AIDS – AND his partners. But even if he had anal intercourse, as I said, it needs a lot of planning and hygiene is vital, she would have needed to have a dump, or an enema, then comes the condom and a lot of lube throughout, and even if no condom is used, the danger of injury to the receptive partner would still cause infections for both. She said he repeatedly sodomised her? Not without using amyl again and again, which causes major headaches (and in fact doesn’t work on everyone), AND vital lube. And, ‘lying on her stomach’? Wrong angle, she needs to be butt up in the air or in fact on her back legs high up for him to actually get it inside her, like with vaginal intercourse – and if she struggles, we might assume unwilling partners do, scream in pain, not a chance, unless he pins her down she didn’t say that he had either and holds her into position. Ergo, no ‘sodomy’ let alone ‘repeatedly’ occurred.

The booze and drugs aren’t sufficient to sedate her to be an easy prey, the struggling alone would make it impossible, and amyl has no sedative effect. On the contrary, it makes you more hyper and euphoric. And what did she do ‘afterwards’? She said he ‘released’ her, and then what? Said thanks and let her go? NOT if someone just ‘raped’ someone. He probably drove her home, like Geimer. These people are too thick to realise any of it, and others, who never had anal sex, simply don’t know that and believe it. Think ‘shit’, just to be blunt. These accusers are full of it. Besides, the man bedded a few thousand women in his life and only ‘three’ cried rape/sodomy? I don’t think so. Geimer was discredited outright, Lewis is a clear liar, and Vogelhut wants to sell her book.

As for Polanski, he’s strong alright, with his family and friends/fans standing by him, has his work – who know perfectly well they tried to destroy his reputation on every level ever since Geimer’s case – and how better than by calling a man a (now ‘child’) rapist, paedophile, you name it. His lawyers haven’t even reacted to that obvious fraud, perfectly aware of the fact that she’s just another Cooley bait (now that the Swiss put a spanner in his smear campaign). Most people don’t believe Vogelhut for several (other) reasons, which are just as correct. She’s just another shameless opportunist who wants to cash in no his scandalous name, since he has zero chances of refuting her claims, and no legal means of lodging any lawsuits.

The fact that neither Lewis nor Vogelhut want/ed to sue him, not only because the statute of limitations has run out, true, (which makes it even less believable since she could have done that right after his 1977 arrest, and Lewis too, who rather gave us all these conflicting interviews instead, even having an affair with him AFTER her ‘abuse’ claims) only shows it’s Cooley’s show. That’s why Polanski could never ever fight any open slander, (and the one suit against Vanity Fair was conducted from France through the UK courts) and therefore scum like Kiernan, Reisman, Lewis or Vogelhut and plenty others could and can defame him to the limit. He’s able to fight a lawsuit by law, (another reason why they don’t wanna sue him, and could take many years anyhow, see Geimer = 10 years) but not file any, unless he’s in the right jurisdiction – i.e. the US – in person. That’s why they all flock there, and to Cooley’s corrupt court to mess with the already highly exploited case some more. ‘We’ cannot do anything for him, except believe in him and his innocence, and support his work.

Harry L

Posted August 2, 2010 at 1.02 AM

Actually, I remember now reading all this–I too was drugged and repeatedly sodomized by Polanski, handcuffs and all. That must have been, wait, in 1972, in Italy! It was horrible! Even though I was born 17 years before that, in 1955, I do remember everything like it happened yesterday! Will someone please write an article about me, please? Or at least call on Allred to stage another press conference, so I can go to Cooley and blab my face out and be the first male Polanski had sodomized! I very much hope justice will be served! He needs to pay for it! I was underage! And I need some dough. (Though it was actually rather fun and exiting when he…)–Get a life, pathetic women, and stop whining about something that [never] happened decades ago. They make me sick.

Novalis Lore

Posted August 2, 2010 at 2.23 AM

That’s probably the best way to confront/ridicule them, with biting sarcasm. Thanks, Harry.

Raver

Posted August 14, 2010 at 2.12 AM

Finally!  Finally someone who doesn’t reiterate this headbangingly mind-numbing, bloody pathetic diatribe of, no, no no no, I won’t repeat it!  No, I’m sure you know what I mean, it’s the online mantra of the decade: he drugged, raped and [repeatedly] sodomized!  There, I said it–it’s PATHETIC!  What I hate most is overdramatic crap like: “her drugged, unconscious and torn little body, cast aside like a lifeless ragdoll after he had cruelly violated her despite her sobbing pleas, a horrific experience that left her traumatized and in fear of adults”….oh yeah?  Muahahaha!  Get a life.  These sad idiots should read sometimes what bull they write; it’s like the soppy melodramatic theatrics coming from Bollywood, or even Hollywood.  Gag.  You refrained from all that shit, Novalis, nay, you gave us the entire “picture” finally, the facts. Thank you–there is a “god” after all.  Kudos, Novalis, kudos.  Go Polanski, go–the God of Carnage is waiting for your masterful touch!  *uck the sexually repressed U.S.!  (I live here, so I can say that!)  As for “Lewis” and that “Vogelhut”–what a dumb name!–pathetic, pathetic liars!

Novalis Lore

Posted August 14, 2010 at 8.27 AM

Why thanks, Raver, happy to oblige!

Raphael Dit

Posted August 14, 2010 at 10.23 PM

The circumstances of this case are simply put, shocking, and I don’t mean the sex, but the legal side of it, it’s unbelievable really. No wonder Polanski said, enough is enough already in 1978 and left. So what it comes down to is unlawful sex, nothing more. I can live with that and will not ever judge him; I slept with several underaged girlfriends in my life, when I was very young and quite a few years older than them. So many men have and NO one ever had to pay for it like Polanski; it’s criminal to punish him or others for sex or that endlessly. Many say it was so long ago, he slipped only once (like million others had and will) let him be. Fine by me too. He’s getting on, was long sexually tamed and has films to make. Shame crook Cooley has no honor to honor what Rittenband and Gunson with Dalton had agreed on to close this case finally. It’s sheer vindictiveness and it’s repulsive.

I realise the times were different, high on sex and drugs; so were my parents. So was I later and we suffered no ills, didn’t become addicts or criminals. Why is it that everyone has to vilify Polanski after so long for having done what millions did, or will? Nothing wrong with sex or a bit of recreational drug taking as long as it doesn’t harm you or others. Unlike “others”, that is, disgraceful confabulators Lewis and Vogelhut (or Geimer  as a teenager), I have no one to else blame when I indulged in it, and Polanski should not be made an example of for doing what we all did. Those who deny they ever had then or now, and today rally against their own history or others are pathetic hypocrites, and to cry rape or sexual abuse is criminal. These women should face a prison term to learn not to lie.

I live in the U.S. and I too find our anti-sex laws and misandruous feminist crusades absurd and very disturbing. It’s highly damaging to developing and maintaining a healthy sexuality in this oppressive, repressed climate, and “people” like “Allred” should be publicly stripped of their office who support women to cry rape for money, playing the pathetic little “victims”, rather than stand up for their sexuality, desires and resulting responsibilities. But of course, it’s easier to blame the man and all they need to do these days is “claim” abuse or rape without the slightest proof or evidence–disgusting.

I wonder how much longer men will stand for this charade before they wake up finally after one more man was ruined, famous or not. I read your other blog about the false rape accusation bane too, and I wholeheartedly agree on it–it’s gone far too far by now. Especially in California, the capital of sleazy “sexual abuse” criers thriving in the immoral “compensation industry” like poison mushrooms.

Cooley and the rest too should be sent to Chino to get a taste of what Polanski endured, for wasting our taxes on this old case, lying to us, and trying to destroy a man over sex after they destroyed others already. This case should be thrown out by all means and finally closed after tackling the plenty misconducts, to concentrate on real and current crimes that plague L.A. Cooley let’s go rampantly unpunished, while sending innocent men inside who had sex–great balance that. It’s all repulsive legal and moral posturing that deeply offends me and plenty others. Except, we have no power to change things.

I too had no clear understanding of this case before I watched some documentaries and read your better findings amongst other things, but couldn’t believe Polanski was a rapist and wouldn’t just trust what the sensationalist media throws at me. He’s guilty of underage sex, sure, so am I, my parents and many many others. Not a problem for me at all and NO one should be punished for it. NO one tells me with whom to sleep with let alone the “state”, or any religious fanatics. Polanski’s fame in contrast to us unknowns having done the same as he had most certainly has caused him a lot of heartache and troubles, major damage in fact.

I for one thoroughly condemn the negligent, backstabbing mother, Geimer to have indulged in convoluted fantasies that made the whole thing a travesty before Rittenband indulged in his own. I thoroughly condemn the L.A. cops to have staged their blackmail shows with Geimer and Anjelica Huston, before the rest of them made it worse to this day. Of course, Geimer’s later statements to the very opposite, that “it wasn’t rape”, and that the case should be dropped, were all but in vane–such comes from teenage fantasies gone out of hand once the law got their corrupt hands on them to twist them some more forever and ever till the picture is all but a messy blur of facts.

I can understand why people don’t know better, I constantly see these self-righteous little blogger minds and articles rehashing incorrect details, or indulging in downright nasty lies. Not to question what the press serves them or to look deeper, like you have, Novalis, is simply criminal. Inexcusable. This case is extremely complex, and it’s a tragedy that such a great man, who suffered so much in his life already, was milled through the legal system like this, is persecuted like this, all for fame-hungry women who betrayed him. Now he’s back to square one, and his renewed suffering was for f*** all basically. Except, we know now he’s done his time and it should finally be made official, but I doubt Cooley will ever do so. Heaven forbid he’ll ever make it to Attorney General in November.

I support Polanski as the survivor, the human being, not [only] artist. I know he’s not a rapist or pedophile, and to sleep with willing teens is not morally wrong in my book, who should not be pressured into lying in order to make them the “victim” and punish the adult, or rather male, only. I have no problems with his good art, but [their] lies alone and the detrimental law enabling them to lie. I think it’s good that people can separate the man from his art, no matter what they think of him or his past, the case, and to boycott his films is over-reactionary bullshit. We’d needed to boycott so much more than films and that reaching centuries back, if we were to apply “morals standards” all the time. It’s not feasible or wise. Only true crime should be punished, not ever sex.

And true too, many people wrongly confuse his films with [his] reality, when all he does is demonstrate how people cope under stress or with terrible experiences, how the female can be “innocent” and cruel at the same time, or strong (if the “law” [or reprehensible radical feminism] would allow them to be and not play the whining prey after the fact. Like Lewis and Vogelhut). I read all the comments too; they are proof that there are more intelligent voices out here, I wanted to join. Thanks for your great efforts to show us what really happened, Novalis.

Novalis Lore

Posted August 15, 2010 at 12.03 AM

Thanks Raphael and for your good input – I’m with you all the way.

Verena

Posted August 23, 2010 at 11.35 AM

My my my, what did ex-ho and ex-porn ‘actress’ Lewis or ex-model Vogelhut hope to achieve by giving us this ‘sexual abuse’ and ‘BDSM’ sodomy garbage? I think you answered that just nicely, Novalis, good job. Such women should be taken to court over their sordid lies, they’re a disgrace to real women who can take sex, give sex, and real rape victims and survivors who one day will no longer be believed because of scum like them. That includes Geimer – who undoubtedly lied as a teenager (and her mother), tried to make good on it as an adult, and failed miserably for punks like Rittenband, Wells, Vanatter, Walgren and Cooley. My tip to all you ‘females’ out there – don’t cry rape, end of.

Novalis Lore

Posted August 23, 2010 at 12.45 PM In reply to Verena

You’re right, Verena – many already don’t believe [in] real rape charge cases anymore. It’s about time someone clamps down on these false rape/sexual abuse accusers and sends them where they belong – to prison.

Lollipop

Posted August 26, 2010 at 12.26 AM

Good for Switzerland having had the balls to stand up to the warmongering egomaniac U.S. who’s been behaving like an overindulged baby and bully for decades and released Polanski. Food and media junk overfed Americans have accepted the conceit that anything the government or courts do is “for the good of the country” or “society”, when it’s clearly not. We’ve been sold that lie since forever and it’s about time to demand peace and real justice, overturn the false and damaging ideologies of Bush and Obama, Cooley and his henchmen, and not run after some old director from France. As obvious a smear as drug addict Lewis’ and “BDSM fan” Vogelhut’s claims are, the damage has indeed been done thanks to the sensationalist headlines and anything-goes press culture we have today to promote such slander with impunity.

As long as people see the name Polanski from this decade onwards, the word “rapist” or even pedophile, will most likely be tagged to it, either subconsciously or deliberately, and therefore the name of the “director” and great artist Polanski has successfully been soiled for all eternity, despite the repulsive accusations of Lewis being more than bogus and those of Vogelhut, many in fact missed or rightfully believed in even less, sank without a trace. Though others blindly believe now Polanski raped all three–too thick to realise the new accusers are Cooley’s dirty whores and that he cannot sue them over it. As for Geimer, ex-teenage liar, now adult supporter of Polanski, NO “drugged rape” or “double sodomy” et cetera in my book either. The other two discredited Geimer even more with their lies.

If [a younger] Polanski had been arrested on [the] original “statutory rape” charges today in Switzerland, or Sweden, Germany, France, et cetera, his high-profile name would NOT have been made public, or anyone else accused of rape for that matter, while in the U.S., and U.K. for now, though they’re about to change that I believe, they would do so without any moral scruples let alone proof. His rearrest in 2009 on the old charges was therefore nothing “new”. But in 1977 the “rape” charge headlines broke all over the international press like a wildfire, followed by a myriad of incorrect “updates” and a nasty lynch mob attitude after the Manson tragedy haunting him already today’s even more degenerate witch hunt can easily burn into the ground with more vile bile.

I’m sure had he been arrested in any of these countries “then”, no pompous “Rittenband” had made his life a never-ending fugitive status. Sadly, when seeing Polanski’s face or hearing his name today, like back in 1977/8, and slowly having resurged over recent years again for their concerted efforts to have the case dismissed, which kept his name mainly in the [bad U.S.] press till it re-exploded last year, many ignorant people will say [again] till the day he dies, “Isn’t (or wasn’t) he this “Hollywood rapist” who made films?” I have no sympathy for people with their simple-minded assumptions shown in the majority of posts and all over the media. Responding overemotionally by jumping to false conclusions in order to condemn blindly with nasty comments is irresponsible and highly damaging.

A false rape (or “domestic violence”) charge would always be the easiest and most successful way of damaging a man’s or celebrity’s [already tainted] reputation in one fell swoop. It just requires paying off a “loose” woman who is “willing” to lie, if sex ever had occurred or not. No need to produce any immediate hard evidence, such as a murder case would require a body or a person missing at least. And then there’s the sexual element to this which titillates and “shocks” people more than anything else into drooling name-callers. Not even murder. For men, an accusation of rape or sexual abuse is worse than murder. Of course, the more people declare it’s not a “conspiracy” or lie, the more it is. When Lewis said, “Roman knows I speak the truth,” that speaks the very opposite, as seen by her very own earlier interviews. Did she really think we’d not ever find out she lied?

Yet, unfortunately when the charges prove false the accuser is rarely prosecuted, after the rape shield and anonymity laws protected them already and even then they hardly end up in prison for long when taken to court, at which point some might recant and then are simply let off, after some “expert” declared some [fictional] “mental problem” crying for mercy. As long as these extreme feminist laws exist in this fashion to support these liars, any man can and will be destroyed over [sordid sex] lies and dirty money. Many commenters have noted that the accusations from the second complainant were purely designed to establish a “pattern of behavior” in support of the first false “sexual abuse” claims, and of course to bolster the original no lesser untrue “rape/sodomy” charges–other than to influence the [now failed] extradition of course.

Just look at Julian Assange, the “Pentagon whistleblower”, who was accused of “rape” and “molestation” the other day, before the unfounded rape charge was dropped within hours by the Swedish authorities. And the still pending charge of “molestation” can mean “anything”. But, unlike in the U.S. or “L.A”, the Swedes demand real proof of sexual assault and won’t fall for such smear. I also recall how Iraq weapons inspector Scott Ritter became a “child molester” suddenly when he was testifying that the idea/danger of WMD is a myth. Which it of course was. The terrible thing is that this obvious character assassination and attempt to silence these men, has left the inevitable smear in people’s sub-conscience. The rape charges were on the front pages, or top headlines of various media, the charge withdrawals or debunking articles sit at the back if they ever even make the news.

If a direct or all too obvious smear campaign fails, as seen with Lewis, or “big hat” for that matter who was made to shut up or else face legal actions I suppose (and deservedly didn’t even make it into the international press as far as I have noticed), the next thing that will happen is digging up others who are more “credible” with their sex and drugs lies–even if it requires another smear campaign of “witness enticement”, or even “intimidation”, or simply pay more money to these potential liars. Or, drop [false] charges against someone in exchange to “testify” against the man to be destroyed. See Anjelica Huston, though luckily she didn’t need to face Polanski that way. I wonder if she in fact had, or pled the Fifth.

In high-profile cases like these the names and faces of these women should be broadcast on every channel, printed in every newspaper, and their [real] motivations investigated while charges are pending, so that they can’t smear someone with any false accusation during these needed investigation. That would put a stop to the repulsive cry rape accuser epidemic at once. Since only these Polanski “exes” waded into the public limelight suddenly and their lies were plastered all over the news, it should [also] make it clear that they are false accusers since in real rape cases the potential “victim” always stays anonymous and would go to the cops first, not any L.A. trash attorneys. Like those who do or do not land someone in prison after they came out to claim their 15-minutes spot of sordid fame, and of course get their “compensation” for their lies, lucrative T.V. interviews and whatnot “rewards”.

But of course, even if the woman remains anonymous, evaded scrutiny and prison, most likely gets promoted, the man has been smeared and often destroyed and many will continue to believe that these allegations were true. It’s one of the reasons that I favor prison time for false allegations when made to the police, or even to trial, and then are conveniently dropped for “insufficient evidence”, i.e., really committed perjury. Exposing these ugly has-beens, gold-digging, often drug-addicted and [always] untalented bimbos who proffered these lies should be named and shamed, sent down, face the dire and often dangerous place they intended to send the innocent man. Get raped there for real for all I care, which the man no doubt would have been more than once–to get a taste of their own nasty medicine, wake up to harsh reality and that lying and crying rape is a crime.

The U.S., i.e., the CIA, or predominantly L.A. courts close to sleaze hole Hollywood are in/famous for smear campaigns of this insidious sort, and to realize that might wake the Europeans up as to how deceitful and dangerous our U.S. government and her corrupt lawmakers and lawenforcers are, and how they need to protect their people from us. Or is it in fact the other way around to resort to such lowlife backstabbing actions, and that the U.S. is afraid of more civilized Europe and the rest of the more [sexually] enlightened world we try to “police” and dominate, dictate, with and in our religious and gun-obsessed fanaticism? I’m sure that’s a BIG YES.

Great work, Novalis, your grand investigative efforts and substantial findings might just pose a more intelligent threat to the pathetic little sex-repressed (and obsessed), infantile and ignorant U.S. mind when it comes to master Polanski. Let’s face it, America is just a big, fat, hairy, sweaty child molester’s paradise with highly sexualised teens seductively licking on push-up lollies while batting their lashes like Lolita with men jerking off watching them on T.V., while on the other channel some possessed T.V. Evangelist declares all sex is a sin. We might as well call ourselves the United States of Perverts in the name of repressive sex laws and dictatorial feminism that fashioned these men, so they can either punish them for their own lust–or at worst shape them into [real] rapists.

Novalis Lore

Posted August 26, 2010 at 1.51 AM

Very good points made all-round, Lollipop – thanks. And yes, we’re to change the ‘anonymity’ laws here in the UK to clamp down on false rape accusers, and even named one or two of them publicly already – as a stark warning, along with hard prison time.

Wolfgirl

Posted September 16, 2010 2.57 AM

When this all happened, I was 18, and I lived in LA but moved back to England soon. Geimer and her mother were ‘Hollywood hopefuls’, typical of the hundreds of ‘groupies’, bit-part actresses and extras milling around the studios every day, ‘promoting’ themselves as best they could, who clustered around popular actors and famed directors. Geimer said herself she wanted to become a ‘Hollywood actress’ and her mother wanted this too, with Polanski’s help. Same applies to ‘Lewis’ – who however messed it all up herself BIG time by becoming a junkie. No sympathy here, and to say that drugs were everywhere she could not escape is not only bullshit, but only shows no willower on her part to say no to them.

I knew a bunch of kids my age and younger with a couple who had bit parts in TV shows, but they didn’t know Gailey, or her daughter, but they certainly knew how all this ‘Hollywood casting couch’ biz worked. What Geimer did was nothing out the ordinary, or her ‘ambitious’ mother. That’s why I for one believe Geimer WAS on the pill. Or Lewis, from the day she prostituted herself as a ‘rebellious teenager’ as she put it.

If the casting couch scenario occurs, though less than people think, in Hollywood it’s not ‘whoring’ yourself, it’s ‘selling’ yourself to a potential ‘agent’, a potential ‘stepping stone’ into the world of showbiz, skin and all, and voila, you’re in. If that’s not to everyone’s ‘high morals’ that’s their problem. I doubt anyone living in a nice suburban area doesn’t have affairs to get ahead. Or laid. Hardly anyone in Hollywood hasn’t slept him/herself up the ranks in those days. It’s a perfect give and take world; I give you my body, you give me your next film part. If it works is another question, see Lewis who lied about it, since you still need a certain amount of ‘talent’ she obviously couldn’t offer in the long run. It’s a perfect make-believe world, and you grab every chance to appear in a flashy fashion magazine like Vogue Hommes in Geimer’s case.

When her sister’s boyfriend asked Polanski to photograph Geimer, I’m sure they thought they’re all made. I would have, and I would have slept with him too to get into that Vogue spreadsheet, after spreading myself in the sheets with him. He looked nice, was very muscular, charming, no doubt gentle and practiced. Have a little bit of champagne to loosen up, have a little bit of a Quaalude to get horny, have a nice little one-night stand, no problem. No morals or qualms, just a bit of casual sex, both are happy. But I sure as hell hadn’t cried rape. That was so disgusting.

Many did and will sleep around not even being part of Hollywood, it’s nothing out the ordinary. But I’m sure ever since ‘then’ Polanski never mixed sex with business again, which Lewis forgot all about, and said herself many years back she had her part in Pirates already long before she had an affair with him, and then gives us this shit that he had forced her into sex to get that part, playing the ‘casting couch’ card. Ugly liar. Polanski was branded by famewhores big time. As for ‘Vogelhut’, she’s Cooley’s whore, he dug up somewhere to besmirch Polanski some more if he can’t get to him otherwise. She deservedly went under like an ugly dead duck.

This was ‘easy’, sex and drugs intoxicated 70s Hollywood we’re talking about here, where you needed to get ‘skin-deep’ to get anywhere. ‘Innocence’ was a myth there. Still is. This wasn’t your average neighbourhood family outing with a few snapshots and a fling after a skinny dip, though I’m sure they do drugs and have underage sex too, if not more so, while filming it on their cellphones these days.

Geimer didn’t have a constant father figure around to look after her, same with Lewis and look where she ended up, and as far I can see it, Geimer’s mother changed partners all the time, was married several times, had her first kid with 17/18, like Geimer, and a sister who was a Quaalude junkie. Great family background.

Her mother’s then boyfriend she had a thing with was Polanski’s age, and it is fairly logical to assume that she was into older men in general, like Kinski, who don’t seem to be too put off about older guys, I’m not, and Geimer’s current husband is 60 or whatever. It’s well-known that girls without a regular father turn to older men as a sort of substitute. And, if she was pregnant with 17/18, in ‘80/81, given she was 14 in ‘77, her first son must be 30 now. If she was 15, her son is definitely 30.

I wonder what she told them the nasty little Pole did to her. Or her husbands. Probably the truth that ‘it wasn’t rape’, he wasn’t ‘forceful or hurting me’. Why not tell the world officially for a change too, to stop people believing Polanski is a rapist. I find it more than disgusting that she lets people dwell in that belief, makes herself out to be this ‘victim’, when she has all the power to put a stop to this lie. Still.

In Geimer’s testimony most of the details are to this day uncorroborated by any independent witnesses, were nullified by the medical and other evidence outright, true, and Geimer alleging that Polanski had ‘passively’ enticed her to have sex with him doesn’t sound too convincing to me either, especially since they asked him to photograph her, but only if one has all the details as you present them here, Novalis. Polanski denied that the sex was forced, I knew that much, in fact heard plenty stories that they didn’t believe her story at any rate.

Angelica Huston spoke to the girl at the time of the incident in the house, stated that Geimer never claimed to her that Polanski had forced her, or that Geimer sought assistance from her at the time of the alleged ‘multiple rape’. NO rape victim would do that. It’s all fantasy. She’d be hiding behind her even if Huston hadn’t interrupted them, look distraught, very emotional, not act ‘rude’ towards her of all people.

And, if the doctor couldn’t find anything that would corroborate her words after a few hours only the very same evening? Sorry, then she lied. I read everyone’s transcripts too, the medical evidence as you present it here word by word, and nope, nothing makes sense to me. But HIS very own statement does, short and sharp, casual, consensual albeit ‘unlawful’ sex, that’s all. Teens lie all the time to avoid punishment, make up stories to drop the adult right into it.

I really don’t understand how people can believe her account, when I frowned and thought, nah, this ain’t right, she came up with too much that doesn’t sound logical, coherent, especially when it comes to the course of events and sex itself. Anal sex doesn’t work that way, sweetie. Same goes for this Vogelhut, sad attempt to make Polanski a habitual sodomite. Bullshit.

I know the case never went to trial, but obviously not to help spare Geimer ‘relive’ her oh so weepy ‘ordeal’, but from further disgrace on her father’s ‘advice’. Both the DAs perfectly understood that her uncorroborated claims, contradicted by Huston and Polanski, were a very flimsy basis for any conviction on the various charges of ‘drugged rape’, they could have pursued against Polanski even without any trial but obviously didn’t, hence, the plea bargain US style. BIG mistake. Always is.

They evidently saw her in the very ‘provocative’ flesh Polanski couldn’t resist, looking older than she was, way past puberty, had all the drugs-laden family background low-down on her, the sister and her mother, the boyfriend’s ‘lewd act’ with her, her general sexual encounter history, looked at all the ‘no-rapist/paedophile’ psyche reports, had their logical heads screwed on, put [the] two and two together, couldn’t find any drugged forcible rape let alone twice forced sodomy, thought the shield laws will make it hard to get anywhere either way, didn’t want to waste more recourses, Huston originally disclaimed her allegations anyway, and hey presto, [fatal] plea deal.

Poor Roman, fell for her ‘adult female’ body, and therefore ‘situational offender’ is a perfect description of the entire string of events, since he didn’t think her erotically appealing once he met her, ‘nothing sensational’, in no intentions to have sex with her. Up to that very moment after they’d finished with the photos, the hot tub, and she wanted to rest. I wonder what happened if she hadn’t asked to lie down somewhere. Nothing I suppose. Polanski said often enough if a female doesn’t want sex with him, that’s that, on to the next one who wants to.

Besides, SHE wanted to get into the Jacuzzi, not him, and he never joined her there either. That she felt too hot makes perfect sense, not was ‘afraid’, that makes no sense. Had Polanski not said to Huston the Jacuzzi ‘was too hot as usual’, we’d still be puzzling over why she lied about her asthma story and how she ended up in that TV room. NOT bedroom. Had Rittenband played by the rulebook, the whole thing would have been sorted right then, thrown out, and people today wouldn’t believe in the nonsense that he had second thoughts because Polanski was ‘guilty’ – no, he’s not, the old judge just wanted to have his own 15 minutes of fame and made a public feast of him. Like the rest of them today.

How did Polanski put it before he ever pleaded: “In all my premonitions of disaster, (like he in fact thought never to see Sharon alive again) one thought had never crossed my mind; that I should be sent to prison, my life and career ruined, for making love.” How true. I’m so happy he’s been freed – on with life! We love you Roman! Make some more ace films!

Novalis Lore

Posted September 16, 2010 at 3.37 AM

Thanks for your great insider knowledge input, Wolfgirl – and true, on with life and more Polanski films!

Summertime Bluesies

Posted September 21, 2010 at 6.16 AM

It’s been a whole year now since his rearrest, and I must confess, your colossal “analysis” is amazing research I should have come across much earlier. It’s crammed packed full with intriguing findings I too could find out in part over the last months, Novalis, from books or old magazines, the officially released transcripts, you name it. It took me a few days to digest what you alone came up with and agree with it wholeheartedly. I also read all the comments, and yes, I too think Polanski was or is not ever a rapist let alone pedophile, or we’d heard of it outside bullshitters like Lewis and Vogelhut I don’t believe a word for all you stated and my own better judgment. It appears only people with access to all this have the better angle on the details, the general populace of course have not, nor want to. It would seriously shake their belief in Polanski the “pedophile rapist”.

And you’re right, a teenager, who is capable of reproducing, looks like 20, behaves like 18, with a sex, drugs and alcohol history, grows up much faster especially in L.A. with an ambitious “Hollywood” mother during the heydays of the 70s. But apparently Geimer’s “age” didn’t quite match her physical maturity to stand up to her slipshod parent, confess to the sex and drugs to leave Polanski alone, and have that “career” they both tried to achieve through him. No, “feminism” taught her to play this pathetic female victim ever since, which turned her into this “little child” today and all men into rapists. Great female d/evolution that. I call it delusional degeneration and misandry gone haywire. All over some topless photo-what, did he she believe that “Vogue Hommes” is for “kids”? No, “hommes” means “men”, and it featured nubile teens and that nude too. Idiot.

With the changing times and “sex crime” language having escalated into obsessive anti-sex campaigns fuelled by radical feminism, Polanski once was someone who photographed and slept with a minor like million others had as many stated already. Now he’s suddenly this “child rapist” and it’s called “child pornography”; it’s disgusting and moralistic overzeal I deeply detests. Good his own kids didn’t grow up in the prudish, militant U.S., where sex an s erotic art are “T.V. evangelistically” exorcized as being sinful, rather than enjoy it in all its facets. HAVE SEX WHEN AND WITH WHOM YOU LIKE! NOT WHAT THE FASCIST STATE SAYS!

It deeply incensed me to read the same crap over and over, that he still faces the “charges”, never went to prison, paid for it and whatnot else crap. And then of course we had the endless retelling of the “sordid acts”. The U.S. has a very long way to come out of the Ice Age of demonizing sexuality, consensual, homosexual and teenage sex. Instead of progressing, we’ve regressed, punish sex mindlessly, revel in militant actions and racist language, get off on violence and vile name calling as compensation when others promote sexual freedom and peace. Men haven’t got the slightest chances of any proper defence here once some lying female accused them of “rape”, or sexual abuse, in this feminist perverted environment. See ugly liars Lewis and aptly dubbed ‘big hat’ Vogelhut indeed.

That said, what will happen to this corrupt and ever-more exploited case now is anyone’s guess, true. We know what Cooley wants, but that’s not what the more intelligent public wants “anymore”, let alone Samantha Geimer who should have a say in this the Swiss at least respected. My guess is, Polanski will die one day and the case gets simply closed without ever having been litigated and everyone got away with their crimes–the Gaileys, Rittenband, Vanatter, Wells, Cooley and his corrupt lot, traitors Lewis and Vogelhut–leaving Polanski the genius director[/rapist/pedophile] for all eternity. It’s very sad and terribly unfair. After all, why bother letting the facts get in the way of the anti-Polanski media soundbites rather than clear his name the Court of Appeal could so easily achieve.

I have one question, though, seeing that you covered everything else exhaustively indeed and replied to every comment; one thing is a mystery to me–what was that with Anjelica Huston saying that Geimer was “breathing high in the throat” I read somewhere, when she met her after Polanski had introduced her to her “on the phone”; did she in fact “really” say that later, or was that the “second” statement of hers this “Vannatter” had coerced from her in exchange to drop the cocaine charges he wanted to use against Polanski, like saying, that she saw them “going at it”. Any ideas?

Novalis Lore

Posted September 21, 2010 at 8.41 AM

Good question, Summertime Bluesies. It appears that it was the ‘second testimony’ of Huston’s, yes, and in order to be used against Polanski and to say she ‘saw them going at it’, at [the] trial that never was for the plea deal to come in. Huston never said so in her first statement, only that Polanski would never rape, sodomise or harm some unwilling girl, and that Geimer was ‘sullen’, i.e., abrupt to her she found ‘rude’ (most likely because they had to leave). Huston knew Polanski well and would know better if he’s capable of what Geimer accused him of. But the fact that she knew of the later indictment counts points to Vannatter’s handiwork, since he must have told her after he had interviewed Geimer at home the first time the same evening after the sex, and then again after the hospital that same night while he only saw Huston the next evening right after Polanski was arrested.

Polanski brought him to the house to interview her, at which point Vannatter no doubt had already planned to make it a sodomy case for Geimer’s unclear account after the hospital exam; he led her basically, since she apparently said, “I thought he [Polanski] went in the wrong way,” which is such bullshit not to know where anyone had penetrated them. The medical results were only made known at and to the actual grand jury hearing panellists where they all testified independently, except Polanski as the defendant to be indicted on her claims, and did not hear what the others had said or were allowed to talk about it. That’s why the mother’s, the sister’s and Geimer’s accounts are slightly off in places even between them. Vannatter could have told Huston to say something like ‘breathing high in the throat’ to back up their by then redundant asthma lie (unless this is all Kiernan’s bullshit since he wrote about that too), and of course doesn’t corroborate Polanski’s, Huston’s [original] and the caretaker’s versions.

After Vannatter’s lot found the coke and pot in Huston’s possession he had the perfect vehicle to blackmail her into saying what he had already told Geimer ‘must have happened’, i.e., that he [Polanski] ‘went through her back’, i.e., sodomised her [twice] and she had ‘interrupted’ them while doing so, whereas Dr Larson’s evidence in fact had discredited her account already outright none of them knew of. Hence the plea deal later once mom found out she had lied in certain very crucial places, Gailey much later described as a ‘stupid mistake’  and to have called the cops. Sure was, with horrendous consequences. Polanski never actually mentioned Geimer appeared grumpy to Huston like that in his autobiography and of course said that she never interrupted them, or that he had the same impression of her being ‘sullen’. Which is either way of no importance, except that it shows that Geimer didn’t appear to her as being ‘drunk’, ‘drugged’, ‘crying’, or in any form ‘harmed’ Geimer tried to make out she was.

There Is No Spoon

Posted September 22, 2010 at 12.01 AM

Novalis, seeing all that great effort of collecting all that highly intriguing ‘evidence’ chronicling the events and covering his rearrest I can only admire, I read the plenty likeminded comments too, but-um, where did you get all ‘that’ from? Given that I didn’t do any more in-depth research of my own to know better, I did however read the court transcripts on ‘smoking gun’ and watched that admittedly very important Zenovich documentary and a couple of interviews, and can see where it all went wrong legally, (and the public not knowing better). Having said that, I can fully agree on that ‘double sodomy’ business being a total non-event. I know what anal sex entails, as in preparations and lots of lube and so forth, so in that sense I don’t buy her anal rape claims one second even without your explanations and Dr Larson’s no less very crucial findings. What I believe is what happened here at the end of the day, is his version, not hers. What I also believe it that the entire LA court system is just a modern-day equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition with Cooley and his lot legally ordained torturers not to let Polanski go. He’s committed one stupid act of sleeping with a minor like so many others have, while mom and her lot got away with crying rape – let it rest. It’s vindictive and low.

Novalis Lore

Posted September 22, 2010 at 1.12 AM

Most comes from the ENTIRE grand jury hearings, extradition and other later court hearing transcripts, not only the deliberately cut-off segment of Geimer’s testimony omitting the others’ statements and in-chambers depositions, that crucial evidence of Dr Larson and the probation reports backing him or rather Polanski up, any other publicly accessible court records, many non-electronic magazine publications, books, Polanski’s autobiography, online interviews and court hearing proceedings, and of course as-it-happened coverage, you name it. It’s all out there since day one, or to buy, view online, and then of course I was there – as in the 60s and 70s to remember the events firsthand. The best way to find much of what I offered here, is to punch in a few keywords and names and then go through what google comes up with. Look out for officially released court records showing as PDFs, all else might be ‘reinterpreted’ excerpts on anti-Polanski blogs and mostly shallow news and nasty trash sites. Forget ‘smoking gun’, they only offer ‘her’ side. Only trust sites that won’t stoop to pure condemnation and repetitive ‘drugged rape and sodomy’ bullshit, or check out those on my blogroll. And true, Cooley & Co are nothing but legally elected thugs and hypocrites who love to torture famous people for public amusement.

Mishem

Posted September 22, 2010 at 10.18 AM

Hi again.

I have just found something so beautiful can’t help but share it.

http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/features/the-defining-moments-of-roman-polanski.php

A bittersweet article, then comments – as expected, on the 1977 case only; I had to intrude, as usual, and posted my own comment; the lynch mob turned against the author of the article for trying to find at least something positive to say about the unspeakable criminal who had committed the crime of the century; the author started justifying himself and finally blurted out this gem:

“As I wrote in this article Polanski’s actions regardless of the circumstances were inexcusable.”

Regardless of the circumstances! I loved this one to pieces. I commented, of course… but what a wonderful way to put it, indeed! That sums up everything the media have already said, or will say about the case.

Novalis Lore

Posted September 22, 2010 at 7.30 PM

I read that already and in fact similar articles since his rearrest, or even before that, since the debate is raging since decades, which didn’t stoop to this mindless. ‘he drugged and raped and sodomised a ‘child” rhetoric as if it were fact, and if the doctor’s reports who examined her said she was an ‘adult female’ not ‘child’, so be it. He was a specialist of sodomy rape victims, and if he didn’t find anything consistent with it, there was no rape/sodomy, end of. People obviously still don’t realise that a grand jury testimony has ZERO veracity until proven in a trial – there never was trial, since they had enough hard evidence to the contrary of her claims, and that’s why the mother pressed for that plea deal to end it. If only. It always comes down to the one-dimensional, short-sighted and dehumanising condemnation of people who think the breakdown of the law is irrelevant, but would be the first to cry for justice had it been them in the hands of an egomaniac judge who abused his powers and did not cut it short.

As for your comments, they’re spot on, but will do little unless they see the court transcripts and evidence that discredit her version entirely and why they went for the plea deal; because they had NOTHING TO SUPPORT HER, not because they wanted to ‘spare’ her the ‘ordeal’ she embellished on of being cross-examined before a more scrutinising jury, sure, but not to be shredded by the defence and unravel her claims. And even if people don’t believe her, they still have that little moral hook to hang their hypocrisy on, making an ugly example of Polanski, while utterly forgetting that millions sleep with underaged teenagers, and as you said, our own ancestors slept with young fertile females throughout the cultures, before the insidious feminist revolution declared them all rapists and the female implicitly a victim in order to shed all responsibilities when it comes to sex. No one went to prison in years in 1977 in LA or Hollywood ‘stars’ ever since for the same oh so heinous offence of sleeping with a teenager, except Polanski, NO one in fact wanted, simply for WHO he was. Let’s hope these diatribe mongers will end up in prison for a number of sex acts with their underaged girlfriend for decades, while the ‘little helpless female’ gets away with it. Or better still, be accused of rape after some one-night stand to face ZERO chances of proving it was consensual and end up in prison to get raped there for some lying whatsit. Liars like that self-confessed ex-prostitute and drug addict Lewis who said the exact opposite about Polanski only years back, or that 15-minute famewhore Vogelhut who turned it into a sleazy BDSM attack suddenly to sell her kiss-and-tell-all book. Good most didn’t believe them.

Thanks for linking my blog on that site, mishem, and true, to say at the end: “As I wrote in this article Polanski’s actions regardless of the circumstances were inexcusable,” is a slap in the face of justice, since it implies that the author, like so many, doesn’t give a shit about the mounting misconducts and Cooley and & Co’s vindictive witch hunt to further his name and corrupt career with smear campaigns and name-calling DAs, while only concentrating on the ‘sordid ['child'] sex acts’ of which only ONE is fact, and it’s not the rape or sodomy, too stupid to realise what she said later. No genuine rape victim would ever campaign for her attacker’s freedom, let alone demands to have the charges dismissed; they would call for prison time – she never has. Maybe these people should try anal sex for a change to see that it’s all fantasyland she came up with as teenager the attorneys recognised – and stop thinking teen sex is a ‘heinous’ crime; only the perverted anti-sex laws making it a crime is, and to cry rape. Of course, the article forgets to mention that Polanski was released on the fact that he had served his time already in 1977/8, that the judge had reneged on their deal that had been his entire punishment, which ultimately forced Polanski to return to Europe, and that the entire rearrest/extradition was nothing but a political show of force. Good the Swiss put an end to it.

Samskara

Posted September 24, 2010, at 1.42 AM

Once again Novalis, an excellent commentary on the REAL aspects of the Roman Polanski case, not the ones fabricated by an uneducated populace not wanting to believe a young woman like Geimer can and did have the ability to say no, and loudly. The only thing that I have to correct you on is that the flight from justice is no longer on the table, this according to Lawrence Silver on the aforementioned Larry King show. He said the only charge Roman faces is the one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, the one he was already punished for. The one Gunson testified to under oath in his sealed deposition now in Judge Espinoza’s possession. You know, the one Widmer-Schlumpf asked for but didn’t get. You know, that one! (Heaps of sarcasm here due to Cooley’s lack of understanding of the discovery laws of California as well as what was asked for by the Swiss.)

Novalis Lore

Posted September 24, 2010, at 1.42 PM

Thanks Samskara – I borrowed part of the King ‘analysis’ from another blog I came across the other day and elaborated on it – which reflects perfectly what this is all about: that Geimer’s much more important words of today as the adult woman are utterly ignored by the public and the law AGAIN, ridiculed or nullified, twisted and made to fit the Polanski haters’ little sordid minds.

But I must correct you in turn, though her lawyer made it clear already then – few people are aware of, or simply ignore too – that we’re long past the sex, the events of then, and all that’s to be done is [that both] his prison terms must be declared as time served, to litigate and close the case, NOTHING else, he meant that in relation to the original charges only not being on the table anymore. His flight is still a charge that could be bought against him in case of another arrest/extradition, since they forgot to include it last year. A flight charge does not expire as long as the case is not closed, nor does this pleaded count have a statute of limitations since they won’t acknowledge he did his time TO close the case. That’s why Cooley will not let go of this. Polanski pleaded to the one count he’s guilty of, the other dropped counts don’t exist anymore since they could not be proven, that’s what Silver was referring to, and [that] Cooley of course doesn’t want this being made official. He wants to ‘try’ him (though that’s only possible if the plea is withdrawn no judge will ever do by Walgren’s own words in the extradition request he signed), when Cooley knows exactly what’s going on. But he’s a vindictive little shit and didn’t allow Gunson tell the facts of this case, though we DO know them by now more than clearly. Hence, Widmer-Schlumpf too showing him the official finger by listening to Polanski AND Geimer, giving them ‘justice’ if not closure, and released the little Polish mouse from his grip.

Samskara

Posted October 4, 2010 at 10.18 AM

Novalis:

In regards to the ‘flight’, I heard Silver say that the flight is not on the table, and neither are the six original felony counts. It’s only the one count of unlawful sexual intercourse. I seem to recall on the Larry King Show that Silver stated that the flight wasn’t on the table. At least that’s how I heard it. The only thing that is currently on Cooley’s list of retaliatory measures is the one count.

Novalis Lore

Posted October 4, 2010 at 2.32 PM

I saw the interview, and I have the transcripts. The only time Silver mentions the flight, is when King asked whether Polanski is a non-sentenced person, he said, yes, and that there is a warrant out for his arrest for being a fugitive. Nothing else. Being [still] a fugitive implies that the charge of flight can be added, unless the circumstance that led to the flight are deemed an exculpatory cause and is [also] dropped. But his Red Interpol Notice is still active, he’s still a fugitive, though the failed extradition didn’t include a flight count. Silver said the dropped five counts (not six, unless the entire case is dismissed or all the charges are dropped) are off the table, dead and gone once the plea deal is struck, yes, and that the only thing to be done is sentence him to time served for the unlawful sex count. It was always only this one count and no trial is possible or any other charges can be added unless the plea is withdrawn.

Though we know that Cooley tried to have Lewis’ claims taken into account under Evidence Code 1108 – but only if Espinoza had allowed for it, I highly doubt, since we all know now that she had lied. So the flight count is ‘there’, but most likely will not be added in case there ever will be another extradition (I highly doubt) for all the misconducts, since Fidler and Espinoza had already said that all they’d do is sentence him to time served and nothing else, and probably was the reason they had not added it. But a flight charge or his fugitive status do not expire unless he’s finally sentenced to be officially convicted. Though they could have done so in absentia decades ago, or this year – and that’s why Polanski won’t trust any of them anymore – after the Appeals Court wanted to dismiss the entire case in a special hearing, or drop the charges, the very day he was rearrested.

Samskara

Posted October 11, 2010 at 7.02 PM

Novalis:

Are you going to do a recap of Samantha’s more recent ‘acting’ job? I’ve also got a link for you:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000591/board/thread/171969545?d=172023706&p=1#172023706

This person seems to think that it’s, not in his words:

“Throughout the interview, I felt like I got a better sense of the kind of person Geimer is. Even her lawyer remarked that he admired her ability to forgive Polanski and fight to end the case. King thought she was very forgiving and amazing and thought it was ironic that she, the victim, was the main one screaming about the injustice of Judge Rittenband. I’ve always felt that people have made too big of a deal out of a corrupt judge, but to each his own I guess.”

Seems it’s perfectly okay for the judge to be corrupt, but not for her to consistently lie about what she says happened. It further perpetuates your entire blog’s theme of her not taking responsibility for what happened that afternoon. It also negates that no one else wanted Polanski to spend further time, in fact, no time in prison/jail for something that was consensual sex.

I also have to point to this one zinger from BDJones on that crazy IMDB board:

“Both King and her lawyer used the word rape to describe what happened to her and she didn’t object to that. I mention this because Prometheus [that's me on that board] likes to point out that in a televised interview, Geimer said “It wasn’t rape.” However, another poster, lornamd-1, pointed to an article in which Geimer said she was uncomfortable with the word rape and used the term sexual assault to describe what happened to her. Her lawyer mentioned that Geimer did not pursue a civil case against Polanski until his 1984 autobiography in which she felt he crossed the line with some of his remarks. Polanski didn’t voluntarily pay her what the case awarded her, and King asked if that upset her and she said no. King thought that was quite amazing of her, as did I. She went on to say she hopes he is successful in his career and its fine that his friends support him. She also mentioned that Polanski wrote her a letter in which he took full blame for what happened that night and apologized to her and her mother for all the trouble he has caused over the years. This was the first time I had heard he contacted her since the rape, although, she didn’t say when he wrote this letter.”

First of all, how do we address the ‘not rape’ comment she herself has stated it wasn’t. But she is now allowing both King and Silver to address it as such. I don’t get it. It’s one or the other. And the fact that Polanski wrote her this ‘letter’ in which he took all the blame. First, it wasn’t ‘that night’. It was an afternoon. Secondly, that she won’t say what Polanski wrote in this ‘letter’, says that she has a part of him now she always wanted. But she can remain the ‘victim’ in perpetuity and he the un-convicted, un-sentenced convict who escaped injustice.

Once again, Samantha Geimer concocts whatever ‘facts’ suit her but she still does not address the fact there is no EVIDENCE saying she’s telling the truth. When will people get it through their heads that her Grand Jury testimony went unchallenged by Dalton?

She has continually stated that she does not want this to ‘go to trial’. Wonder why? Here are her options should Polanski ever be extradited. He could withdraw his plea and this would be one of three options for her:

1) Be called as a hostile witness and testify via her grand jury testimony that would certainly be challenged by Bart Dalton and Chad Hummell, as it is certain that Douglas Dalton would be called as a witness to explain what happened inside Rittenband’s chambers.

2) Be called as the hostile witness then plead the fifth against self-incrimination and be jailed for contempt for refusing to testify.

3) Be called as the hostile witness and then if she lies, be charged with perjury and jailed or go to prison for the perjury.

So those would be her options. I’m not sure she’d want to have this all opened again. She’s content with being Polanski’s ‘victim’ when it suits her, but she still refuses to address the lack of evidence of a double anal rape and the fact that the panties were collected only later by the cops.

And a shock to me, you mentioned that Vannatter and Wells are buddies. Doesn’t surprise me in the least.

Novalis Lore

October 12, 2010 at 2.07 AM

To address your post step by step, let me start with the fact that I was unable to actually catch ALL of the interview in one piece – all I have is snippets here available in the UK for ‘copyright reasons’ & partial transcripts I found on various articles in regards to what who said & cited in my blog. I read once or twice on blogs that Silver [suddenly] addressed it as ‘rape’ & was more than astounded & thought the blogger had made it up (since they jumped all over it & went, see it WAS rape!) All I heard from Silver on film was that he ‘explained’ the ‘asthma trick’ after Geimer repeated she told Polanski she had asthma in order to get out of the hot tub, & the interview cuts off right there. So I have no idea if he said it, or what to think of it since he seems to have really said it.

So indeed, why suddenly address it as ‘rape’ after she had never even mentioned it before to King in her first interview with him in 2003, when she herself had denied it was in various ways in her pervious interviews, correct – & didn’t even say ‘he raped me’ in her original testimony. So for one, I’m baffled – & would love to watch the entire thing. Of course it was ‘technically’ ‘rape’ but only statutory since she was a minor, but it fuels the wrong idea of forcible intercourse in people’s minds again & the rest she had accused him of to be also fact. So in effect she has contradicted herself once more, or at least her lawyer for her, & she seems not to have opposed it suddenly as she had before. I can clearly remember her having said, the word ‘rape’ brings forth a sense of ‘violence’ that wasn’t there. And she of course never directly said ‘he raped me’, sodomised me, hurt me, forced me. I think Silver meant that it was statutory rape, not actual rape, since that’s not what Polanski pleaded to or could be proven.

How did you address that poster’s remark re the use of ‘rape’ on the board yourself: ‘It was a reconceptualization of rape. In some of her previous interviews, she does not and never has used that word. Schmexual assault, sexual assault. No proof in the form of bruises, contusions, cuts, tearing…all consistent with what SHOULD have been there had it been what she is now calling it. Ah, the old ‘I hope he’s successful in his career and I’m glad his friends support him’ crap. Will she ever tell the truth? As for a letter, he’s fallen on his sword for her…what more could she ask for?’

So yeah, we’re facing another contradiction to her own former contradictions even if not from her own lips but Silver’s. To mention that note might sound nice & in his favour & that he HAD shown remorse [after all], 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 later interviews till he got weary of apologising, & then never addressed the issue again no matter how nicely an interviewer had asked him.

I therefore also have no details on that Silver said she sued him over ‘crossing the line in his autobiography’ (I highly doubt was the reason) in 1988, just before the statue of limitations would have expired to bring forth any civil suit since his flight in 1978. Of course we know she wasn’t officially ‘awarded’ the ‘compensation’, but that it was taken after another ten years from the guarantors of the producers of his Ninth Gate film & simply took it from THEM & deposited into her personal account. The guarantors of course then sued Polanski over it thinking he had siphoned it off, before it was settled amicably after he could prove ‘SHE’ had taken it from them, not HIS lawyers.

The poster said it, citing Silver: Polanski was not in the mood to pay her (for something he hadn’t done), & since they (or her plenty lawyers trying) simply stole it from the guarantors who had no chance to get it back. So yeah, obviously she’s not ‘upset’ by it, since she STILL got the money. Of course King was ‘amazed’ by that, because he has no idea how she got the money ‘after all’, since she never talks about the ‘details’. But I know how they ‘acquired’ it from official court documentation, & even one of the unauthorised recent biographies written on Polanski cited exactly that. She never was awarded the money – they took it from that guarantor, in order for Polanski not to get his rightfully earned film proceeds he had coming in the US, since they had no legal means to take if from him otherwise or seize [part of] his assets, or he of course to prevent any of it. So in a sense they took Polanski’s own money, but from a third party he had official dealings with. I call it stealing. Or if you will, a very high price for a one-night stand he paid 20 years after the events.

Of course she can play the eternal, well-meaning & ‘forgiving’ ‘victim’ because of that one day & 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 on the stand to be finally cross-examined. Only once did he speak his side, (other than in his own testimony given in 1977 part of the probation report not corroborating her side & 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’, & most of all that scenario of her ‘interrupted double sodomy’ Huston & Polanski never corroborated let alone any medical evidence. Equally clear is why she’s so relieved he wasn’t extradited; not to ‘relive’ all that, no, but to face the facts that she made up a few things – either deliberately or was forced to for her age – since had they found her claims credible back in 1977 they’d had Polanski plead to the most serious charge of drugged rape & demanded a long prison term even without her, not simply unlawful sex on probation (he was on since almost a year already) & NO jail time. But then of course Rittenband played his own game for the press & it all went ape shit from there.

Even though Polanski could ask for withdrawal of his guilty plea, yes, believe me, no judge will ever do so, since it entails to repeat the entire process they had undertaken already in 1977, & judges prefer defendants to be stuck with their ‘guilty plea’ since a trial might find them innocent. (Or conversely might put them in danger of facing even more undeserved jail time in case of a biased jury/prosecutor/judge.) And if they’d withdrawn the plea deal to have a full trial with all counts back on the table only then, he’d not stand the slightest chances of a fair defence these days. For one, the unfair Rape Shield Laws, the even more unfair Evidence Code 1108 Cooley wanted to apply with Lewis’ lies, & two, if Geimer would resort to not testifying as she always proclaimed, & your three addressed points therefore come into play, (other than not to go through another grand jury hearing actually since they’ll simply pick up the old charges & go from there straight to trial, which is very expensive, & means Polanski would need to be kept on unsafe remand for god knows how long). Of course she never wanted him in prison; he never caused her the ‘trauma’ people [still] think he had. But she flips the issue like a coin in the forms of once, ‘I was a little scared’, to writing to Fidler in 1997 (a year BEFORE the ‘settlement’), saying: “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 he thought was consensual, 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.

Today she might be her own agent, but had his extradition been successful, they had intended to hold an evidentiary hearing (as so indicated in the request, though legally all they were allowed to & gave as ‘reason’ to seek his return for was to sentence him to time served once bailed & free according to Espinoza’s own words, NOT to stand ‘trial’ & demand more prison time) which no less is a sort of ‘trial’ but without jury, to give both sides the chance to bring in their evidence, witnesses etc. But as I said, if Walgreen had [been given all] the power [Cooley had in mind], he’d simply ask for any exculpatory defence evidence to be ignored by the judge, & if the judge goes for it, ZERO fairness for Polanski & could give him added time, & even if only on probation to cause him more distress. As she said, he had & has no reason to trust any of them keep to what they even had positioned him last year, & she also knows of their ‘real intentions’ of making an even nastier example of him she cannot risk. That shows a conscience, since she knows he never did what she had accused him of, & of course on the self-preservation side, would not emerge unscathed herself for what you addressed & not face court at any price. But ONLY had the hearing been FAIR to BOTH sides, which would never have happened.

She’s in the clear no matter what, & if Silver really said that & she did not butt in to say, ‘well, I never said it was ‘rape’, just you know, he took advantage of me’, we in fact just faced a grave setback with her new very conflicting interview. On the one hand she again demands to let Polanski be, yet never spelled it out that it WAS rape no matter what, not then not now. On the contrary, she said, ‘he wasn’t forceful, he wasn’t hurting me, he wasn’t mean’, etc pp., but then gives us that often-before self-refuted impression of what happened was ‘rape’ after all suddenly, despite STILL no evidences to back her up, correct. Though she never again mentioned the ‘interrupted sodomy’, & never said that Polanski had forced her to take the booze & drug, but when it comes to the sex, she becomes evasive & never speaks of the pain he would have caused her had he REALLY done what she accused him of. (As you mentioned it too often enough.) In fact, she also never said he had forced himself on her. Go figure.

Of course, your condemnation of the poster’s comment about Rittenband’s despicable misconduct being no big deal, but only because SHE says it was, & therefore in Polanski’s defence they cannot allow, is well placed. I wonder what they’d say if a judge wanted to punish them for one offence several times. Or run after them after decades suddenly with ever more misconducts & smear campaigns to utterly destroy them.

How did you respond to that idiot remark yourself on the board: ‘She’s a good actress, I’ll give her that one. Fighting to end a case that if Polanski were ever brought back, he could revoke his plea and exercise his right to confront his accuser. Then that would call up a whole host of legal issues for Samantha in which I’d bet both her and her mother would plead the fifth against self-incrimination. And with no evidence to back up her statements, I’d say it’s a slam dunk, Polanski would be found not guilty. And not a ‘big deal’ about a corrupt judge? Let’s hope you’re never in that position. You’ll be screaming like a baby. Bet on it.’

Indeed. That’s what I had said often enough myself.

Having gone through your other posts on IMDB, & came across this remark you responded to: ‘The quote that sticks out the most for me from this interview is Geimer when she said “It was scary and it was dark and I didn’t know how to stop him”.’

As I said, I never heard her say that, missing parts of that interview, but with your reply of: ‘Yeah, she keeps telling us how ‘scared, frightened, dark’ it was. She doesn’t tell how painful it was to have unprepared anal sex. And again, how does she explain the STILL lack of evidence against him? She can’t and won’t!’ I can only concur with that rebuke.

The TV room was shuttered, but it wasn’t pitch-black & if she really didn’t want him to proceed, she had plenty of chances just to go back into the lounge or bathroom, anywhere but stay with him. It’s the classic cry rape scenario she keeps perpetuating in one form or the other, while not calling it rape outright either or for Polanski to be punished for it. No, it was just what he pleaded to: unlawful sexual intercourse, they made a repulsive feast of it to this day.

Thanks for bringing this up, Samskara. I will include all that in my article, that Silver used the word rape, & then add my own thoughts to that. I might nick some of yours in regards, & some others I came across since I’m short a few crucial details given in that interview. I gathered that wasn’t all of it, but I can’t find the thing anywhere as an entire spot playable here in the UK. Maybe later on YouTube.

As for your first question, you said it yourself, she’s a good actress. She could dupe the grand jury panel as the suddenly oh so innocent teen, & she can dupe the public of today as the adult, though she makes it clear that she doesn’t hate or wants Polanski punished. Curious contradiction. Some call her mentally ill or oh so traumatised for all these contradictions, rather than see the real motives behind her demands to drop the case.

As for manipulative Wells & conniving Vannatter being buddies, that came out only in the much longer interview he gave to Zenovich, she cut down to a few minutes to ‘highlight’ what lying slimeball he is. It was used in the case dismissal request from last year Geimer had signed too, which cites Zenovich’s documentary ‘Wanted’ in full as one of the reasons that multiple misconduct had been perpetrated by Rittenband – & Wells. Of course, we also know that it was summarily denied, despite the fact that the Appeals Court demanded Cooley to look into the allegations – LAST DECEMBER. We also know that he rather brought in ugly liar Lewis instead of sending the Swiss Gunson’s proof that Polanski had done his time. Until the Supreme Court puts its foot down to drop this case, it’ll never end.

Till next time, keep up the good work on IMDB!

(Addition: since posting this comment, I was able to view the entire interview finally & have directly revised certain things.)

Michelle

Posted October 20, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Hei Novalis Lore!

I am a master student in theatre arts from Norway (am though actually Swiss) and plan to write my master thesis about the Polanski case. I was following your blog for a while and would like to ask your permission to use your blog and the comments left on it in my thesis. Please let me know, if you would be ok with this (or if you have any questions about my project).

Hugs from Norway

Michelle

Novalis Lore

Posted October 29, 2010 at 12.32 PM

It is a great honour to be chosen & become part of your thesis, Michelle – As per our emails I’ll be only too happy to assist you.

Alva

Posted October 19, 2010 at 13.16 PM

That’s the problem with our f***ed up country, nothing is ever the “woman’s”, the kid’s or their parents’ fault, it’s always someone else’s fault. Look at that ugly liar Lewis. I mean seriously, what the hell is wrong with our society, where they allow ex-prostitutes and drug addicts like her to smear an ex-lover in the name of the corrupt “law”? I am truly scared for the future of our legal system. No, I’m thoroughly disgusted. One thing that’s for sure, if my kid does something wrong it is either his/her fault for being an idiot or making a bad decision, or it’s my fault for being oblivious to the situation or having failed to teach him/her. Not my neighbor’s, the state, but mine or his/hers. I have no respect for parents who act that way and let their kids get away with crimes and lies. Kids do stupid things, that’s why they should be taught what’s right and wrong, and let not innocent people pay the price because your offspring did something stupid they shouldn’t have. To me if anyone should have been charged here than that’s fabricators like the Gaileys who let their daughter have sex, drugs and alcohol and then grassed on Polanski for sleeping with the sweet little “starstruck” angel, that pathetic Lewis for making nasty rape claims, sorry, lying, and that Vogelhut with being a sad “BDSM” joke. Must be the big hat. And let’s not talk about that hypocrite of a judge and the manipulative DAs or cops. People who cannot see their lies are a just too dumb and a disgrace to all more intelligent folks. Their little brains are incapable of computing more than shallow little T.V. dramas and instantly disintegrate on anything more taxing like facts and the truth. Hell no, in fact, their brains fell out already while hacking away on their computer keyboards spewing obscene abuse and lies. That’s all they’re capable of. What Geimer has said in her recent interviews already is cause enough to charge her with perjury, far from her original testimony, sorry, lies. But women just looooove to see themselves as these poor little victims of these nasty predator men, just as “society” had indoctrinated them with this feminist bullshit, rather than stand up and be strong, really equal, take freaking responsibilities for ALL their actions. Not play this game where evidence is irrelevant, truth is irrelevant, but only their false little rape accusations are relevant. It’s all just to pander their hurt little feelings and pathetic victimhood. Nothing more. I’m ashamed to be a woman-who accepts accountability in contrast. I must be an idiot doing so. Brilliant job by the way, Novalis, truly impressive research. Unsurpassable.

Novalis Lore

Posted October 29, 2010 at 13.43 PM

Thanks, Alva – I couldn’t agree with you more!

Mac

Posted November 10, 2010 at 3.26 AM

I always had a gut feeling that Polanski was railroaded big time. After seeing the HBO Documentary “Wanted & Desired”, the facts clearly show that he has been terribly wronged. I just hope that he is pardoned for leaving the U.S. sooner than later. Because we all know how this is going to work out-the U.S. legal system won’t allow a pardon while he’s alive, only immediately following his death. Simply out of spite. I am no attorney or crime analyst, but the reason that so many are falsely convicted of sex offenses seems painfully clear. First, this is the only category of offenses on which charges can be brought without a shred of physical or often even circumstantial evidence. Secondly, this is the only category of offenses where the accused is consistently assumed to be guilty from the outset. “Innocent until proven guilty” has no meaning and no application at all when one is accused of a “sex crime”, especially against a minor. It is “guilty until proven innocent,” with no evidence to refute or disprove, and with prosecutors salivating with the assurance of another victory. The real abusers here are the parents/mother who used sexual offender statues to manipulate their own legal case and the law itself which slings these laws at everyone they can. It was the State that was responsible for the investigation and close the case. Instead, the State has chosen to defend Geimer’s very shaky old testimony despite evidence refuting her. Today the State has chosen to discredit her current pleas to dismiss the case, and officially recanting would of course threaten her with perjury even though she was just a teenager when her mom and sister (or even Vannatter) got her to say these things. She started the ball rolling, but the State carries the ultimate responsibility to STOP it. Geimer should do the right thing and tell the truth. She should do this for Polanski and every other true rape victim. The fact that the courts will not hear the thinly veiled recantation of the “victim” is a prime example of the system’s motive which is self-centered and unfair. I would say that those that would falsely accuse should bear the consequences that the accused would bear, but laws never consider circumstances such as Geimer being put up to it by her mother and sister. It is frightening how easy it is to be falsely accused. Speaking of being able to consent, it seems blatantly hypocritical that while someone under the age of 14 or 17, depending on what state you’re in, is not old enough to decide whether they want to have consensual sex with whomever they choose, while a 13 year old can be charged as an adult for murdering someone. A 14 year old is a victim if she has sex with an older guy but is a perpetrator if she has sex with a 13 year old boy, yet only if it was a male will end up in jail no matter his own age. NEVER the female. That’s insane. Of course, there are plenty of prosecutors, detectives, and ‘experts’ that have their own personal agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with right and wrong, guilty or innocent. The more “convictions”, the “BETTER” they are doing their job. Damn the truth and the innocence of the accused. This sort of thing is “ingrained” in our society, and VERY wrong. If someone accuses someone of a sex crime, they need to stand trial if that allegation is proven as false and premeditated. That is: Vogelhut, Lewis/Allred and Geimer for perjury. And, Wells and Cooley should be done for grave misconduct (and Vannatter), and Rittenband posthumously disgraced for his own misconducts that made Polanski a fugitive in the first place. The case should be dismissed NOW to finally free Polanski. He is NOT a rapist, nor pedophile. Or ever will be! Thanks for your remarkable efforts to expose the TRUTH, Novalis. You’re ONE in a million-like Polanski!

Novalis Lore

Posted November 10, 2010 at 5.01 AM

Thank you very much, Mac – glad I could shed some light of truth on the whole case. And you’re right with every word – & that the case should be closed NOW to grant Polanski his deserved peace in the matter – & Geimer her wish to see him freed.

Novalis Lore

Posted November 10, 2010 at 5.01 AM

Thank you very much, Mac – glad I could shed some light of truth on the whole case. And you’re right with every word – & that the case should be closed NOW to grant Polanski his deserved peace in the matter – & Geimer her wish to see him freed.

Samskara

Posted November 11, 2010 at 11.50 AM

The plight of a real victim of rape:

Elizabeth Smart testifies about day she was found

Tue Nov 9, 7:52 PM

By Jennifer Dobner, The Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY – Elizabeth Smart was so terrified of her abductor that on the day police found her, she told them she was someone else.

She took the stand at her alleged kidnapper’s trial for a second day Tuesday, telling jurors she was also too scared to speak up when a detective tried to question her in a public library months before she was finally freed.

Smart spent nearly six hours testifying in a steady voice before a rapt audience in U.S. District Court.

She told jurors Brian David Mitchell raped her almost daily and forced her to drink, use drugs and view pornography. Once she tried to flee, and Mitchell and his wife caught her and told her an angel would cut her down with a sword if she ever tried it again.

Mitchell, who knew Smart because her mother had hired him to fix the family’s leaky roof, is accused of kidnapping her from her bed in June 2002, when she was 14.

His attorneys say the homeless street preacher known as Immanuel was influenced by a worsening mental illness and religious beliefs that made him think he was doing what God wanted.

Smart testified Tuesday that when police finally found her in March 2003, wearing a wig and sunglasses and walking along a suburban Salt Lake City street with Mitchell and his wife, she told them she was Augustine Marshall, the daughter of travelling preachers.

Smart, now 23, said that was the story Mitchell had instructed her to tell if ever the three were approached.

Police separated them and peppered Smart with questions. They were tipped off by drivers who reported seeing the girl.

“I was very scared. I knew the threats that I had been told for nine months,” said Smart, who was handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car. “I thought maybe at the same time that this is it. This is it, this is over.”

Smart also told jurors about a missed chance to tell police what had happened when a detective approached her at the Salt Lake City library in the early fall, a few months after she was kidnapped.

She was wearing a robe and a veil that covered her face, and the detective asked if he could look under it.

“He said he was looking for Elizabeth Smart,” Smart said.

Under the table, Mitchell’s now-estranged wife, Wanda Eileen Barzee, squeezed her leg, a sign that Smart should remain quiet. Mitchell refused to let the detective talk to her, saying it was not allowed in their religion and only her husband would ever see her face.

The detective pressed.

“He asked if he could be a part of our religion for a day, just so he could see my face, just so he could go back (to the police station) and say, ‘No it wasn’t Elizabeth Smart’,” she said.

Mitchell calmly refused, and the detective gave up and left.

“I was mad at myself, that I didn’t say anything,” she said. “I felt terrible that the detective hadn’t pushed harder and had just walked away.”

Afterward, Mitchell sped up plans to move the trio away from Utah, so Smart would not be discovered, she told jurors. They spent the summer in California before hitchhiking back to Utah the day before she was found.

The three pitched a tent in an Orem campground called Camelot, about 30 miles (48 kilometres) south of Salt Lake City, after getting a ride from a truck driver.

“The tent was set up and I was raped for the last time,” Smart said.

The Associated Press does not typically name victims of sexual assault, but the details of Smart’s case have become public.

She also told jurors that soon after she was kidnapped, Mitchell tried to abduct her cousin from another part of Salt Lake City.

“He decided it was time to go and kidnap another girl to be another wife,” she said.

The attempt was thwarted when Mitchell tried to get through a window but pushed over some knickknacks and awakened the sleeping household.

Mitchell, 57, faces life in prison if he is convicted of kidnapping and unlawful transportation of a minor across state lines with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. The trial is expected to last at least five weeks. Barzee pleaded guilty to kidnapping and is in federal prison.

Copyright © 2010 Canadian Press

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/101109/world/us_elizabeth_smart?printer=1

My Note: Disgusting how we’re talking about Geimer at all considering that this happened to Elizabeth. My heart goes out to all she went through. Being raped several times a day by this disgusting man. Geimer lies about what she ‘experienced’ and thinks she deserves any concern? Bullshit!

Novalis Lore

Posted November 11, 2010 at 3.09 PM

It is indeed shameful, or any other woman complaining about having been ‘taken advantage of’ during a drunken sex fling by someone or their own boyfriend – it’s a farce and trivializes real abuse & rape. There are several of these cases and genuine rape victims, & NO one will ever hear from ‘them’, but people like Lewis & Vogelhut have to make up sleazy sex stories to gain an audience. As for Geimer, she certainly didn’t suffer anything at the hands of Polanski – she said so herself often enough but still wants to be seen as ‘Polanski’s victim’ – rather than stand up finally & come clean over her own part in it now as an adult, & that of her hasty mother & manipulative sister.

Samskara

Posted November 11, 2010 at 6.36 PM

Novalis:

A question about what you’ve said about Roman’s current status. I read here in one of your very long tomes about Roman being an unconvicted person and an unsentenced person. Could you clarify that one for me?

Also, about Geimer’s mother and sister. I believe the whole bunch of them were conspiratorial in framing up Roman. I don’t think there is any innocent here, except for that schmuck Roman who didn’t see this one coming.

Novalis Lore

Posted November 11, 2010 at 7.35 PM

Actually Silver said that himself in the first Larry King interview with Geimer, that he’s an unsentenced & therefore unconvicted person, since Rittenband never made it official, & Cooley & his lot won’t make that official either. Or rather Espinoza, despite the fact that Polanski had done his time, twice now, & Gunson had testified to all that several times now too. As long as he’s not officially sentenced to time/s served, Polanski is merely a fugitive of the one count he pleaded to, so he technically never was convicted of his plea. The dropped counts however are still off the table once a plea deal stands, (though it was obviously broken) – & he’s ‘guilty’ only of the one count he pleaded to since no one wants to withdraw it either (to have a trial). So in effect, he did his time in 1977/8 & while on Swiss remand last year to the [full] time Rittenband had in mind (no one wanted as we know), yet no one wants to make that official today either, in order to be sentenced & finally convicted of his plea. That’s why Geimer wants the case dropped completely & all charges dismissed, to basically vacate his guilty plea & see him walk without any final sentencing, i.e., conviction. Also meaning, make him not guilty of all charges. Polanski is basically in limbo with his plea she wants erased so that his fugitive status can also be lifted & the case litigated of all the misconducts. That no one wants any of that is clear. If the case would be simply closed, however, his time served was for nothing, his house arrest a total timewaster & at any rate unlawful since the extradition was unsound to start with. All in all, it’s more than fucked up when Espinoza could put an end to it today. As for the Gaileys, you said it.

Samskara

Posted November 11, 2010 at 8.02 PM

Novalis:

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly on that. One would at least hope that at some point, this thing would just be over and done with. I’m sure that even now, Roman wouldn’t care about the misconduct if the case were just simply closed and his charges expunged and he were finally a free man. I’d think he’d just be glad it was officially all over. But as long as Cooley and company can milk it for all it’s worth…. Well, go figure.

About the Gaileys, I really wish there were some way to charge them all with something. Truly. It would make Roman’s contention of the consensual sex all the more believable. We know though if Samantha were to actually have to get on the stand under oath, she’d be in a bit of a Catch-22. Either self-incriminate or implicate her family. That would go over well.

Did you also hear about the death of Dino DiLaurentis? I always believed he was the one who gave Roman the money to flee.

Novalis Lore

Posted November 12, 2010 at 3.08 AM

It was Dino’s rep who gave him a few $ to flee Rittenband’s corrupt court who appeared in Wanted & Desired – & Dino himself went to Rittenband to explain that infamous Oktoberfest photo to him.

I’m with you on that misconduct thing, & maybe that’s what they’re all hoping for, to just close the case quietly one day & that’s that, EVERYONE got away with it all. Including the Gaileys. Especially if Polanski dies beforehand.

Maybe Geimer will wait until that happens, (or her mother too is gone) & then come clean, who knows. As for her half sister, they fell out, remember, so no qualms to tell the courts how she manipulated their mother, & herself back then. Unless they made up again. But by then Polanski might not be with us anymore. Her mother is 70 by now & Polanski 77. Unless he becomes as old as Dino!

mishem

Posted November 26, 2010 at 2.55 AM

Dear Samskara,

I have only now read the story about that dream you had… I was deeply touched, and think that it was, of course, your “heart of hearts” that prompted it, and the fact that a subtle intellect can tell lies from the truth on the subliminal level – you had felt you were lied to even without actually having done any research by that time.

I will even dare tell my own story… Very many decades ago I read something so heinous about Polanski (in 1979, in the Soviet Union; about the Manson murders, not Geimer case) that I just crossed him off from my life altogether (it was the first and the last time I believed the Soviet propaganda, or any other propaganda, for that matter; but neither this, nor the fact that I barely turned 15 at the time can serve as an excuse for me) which was an easy thing to do, given that we didn’t have any truthful information whatsoever about someone who had “defected”, “betraying” the bright Communist ideals. I only learned, some later, that he was not only a notorious Satanist whose wife was killed during a satanic orgy, but an infamous child molester as well. I lived in this delusion since then… so much time wasted, for my heart, for my mind, for my soul! I don’t really understand what happened then – maybe my time had come? – but in April 2010 I suddenly decided to watch The Tenant. It changed everything for me. I just suddenly understood, clear as day, that everything I used to “know” was a lie. I didn’t stop at that; I watched all the 17 of his movies (The Ghost Writer wasn’t available till August)… then I studied his biography, to be able to know for myself what was and what wasn’t… and then I learned he was under house arrest, awaiting extradition. I hadn’t come across Novalis’s research by then, but whatever I was able to glean elsewhere (“Wanted and Desired” including) was enough to form a clear picture in my head, a picture that is fully the same as yours of Novalis’s; I think any thinking person would have come to the same conclusion.

It was all very scary… no, it was horrifying. I was reading the murderous comments of all those hangmen all round the net; at the same time I was watching and reading Polanski’s interviews, learning more and more about his life from all sources. Luckily, I know how to work with sources (being a Ph.D. with a lot of formal education… why, why, why didn’t I use my head earlier than that?), so separating the truth from lies wasn’t a problem… I remember it was July, unheard-of heat struck our city (St. Petersburg), I was sitting there sweating, reading and listening and watching like a madman, day after day, totally obsessed… and then I came to that shocking piece of information that had escaped me before –

Did you watch that short film, Le gros et le maigre? It is a little masterpiece, if you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it… not to give too much away, at some point he (le maigre – the lean; a slave; played by Polanski himself) ends up chained to a goat, with the chain tied around his ankle.

Everything goes in circles as far as his destiny is concerned. He escapes the ghetto – the Communism – the American [in]Justice. The infamous hearings were set for August 9. Some of the Manson gangs were among the inmates of Chino. The iron curtain which he was lucky to break through in the early 60s was rebuilt around him in the late 70s. And now this –

I know what I will say now is impossible to prove, and I can only beg you to believe me. It was July 11; I didn’t know anything about when the Swiss was going to take their decision; and I had just learned that the electronic surveillance device referred to as a “bracelet” was in fact an anklet.

This circle closed, too. And then I had this kind of… well, vision. Like, you know, it was all God’s experiment: how much can a man endure? If he is given everything – talent, intellect, charisma, unprecedented survival skills – and then made to go through all hells imaginable, will he be able to survive? To create? To stay sane? To stay himself? When the last circle, the chain around the ankle, closed before my eyes, I suddenly saw another, the very last: now, he is supposed to be extradited to the US. No, they won’t let him out on bail this time. And he will die there, in jail, because there are some limits only for people whose essence is made – not even of steel, of pure diamond! – and the last thing he sees in life will be the barbed wire.

Then I started praying (I am a Catholic, by my own free choice) to Saint Anthony. I was saying, “Please. Don’t do that, ok? Just tell them not to do it. Please. I have already appreciated the elegance of this piece. Just let him be now, please? Let him live some more, another decade or two? Please?”

Then I slept, exhausted, and then it was July 12. Extradition denied. Cooley may go f… I mean, fly a kite.

And a couple days later I found this blog and knew I was not alone in my hopeless fight against the mob and for the truth.

Thank you, Novalis.

Thank you, Samskara.

Thank you, all people who still keep their sanity, honor, self-respect and common decency.

Thank you, St. Anthony.

Novalis Lore

Posted November 27, 2010 at 9.51 AM

Hello mishem –

Even though your comment is directed at Samkara, who commented on my blogs often before as an ardent defender of Polanski, you posted your ‘vision’ to my site too, so I shall honour your effort to tell us how you came to view Polanski over the years – as I suspect like many more had: utterly misinformed & unjustly.

I read about Samskara’s dream too. It is very perceptive & in effect spot on. Her ‘heart’ & intellect, logic & deduction powers were certainly in the right place. Her instinct sealed her efforts to find out & tell the truth in her own way – the ONLY truth about the case, the men – & the women of the utterly distorted piece.

Many read that same frankly put bullshit about Polanski being this Satanist in the West too since they invented it, right after the murders, that it was some satanic sex & drugs orgy, or that Polanski even killed them himself. It was literally plastered all over the papers that he did it & [some] people even believed it, while I thought that’s nuts. I never believed any of that preposterous garbage, while some still do it in their sad little delusions – just because he made ‘ONE’ film with a satanic thematic, at that time. It’s sad & reminded me of the Salem witch hunts – which would be reignited eight years later, & then again in an even more monstrous form online three decades on. I can remember it clearly, & how Polanski had cried in front of the press, the same who had spread cruel lies about them. It was heartbreaking, & when the truth came out, it was so banal & boring – just ‘brainwashed’ hippies who went after the wrong people in the name of this ‘guru’ Manson – a pitiful little man with too much power over some pitiful little girls. Murderous little monsters, nothing more, with Polanski left the devastated survivor. No one ever apologised to him over what they had written about him, Sharon & their friends, & so it would be from thereon: Polanski the free-for-all media fodder whipping boy.

Of course, Polanski never was a ‘Communist’, he only lived in Poland after the war to learn everything about & make films, his one passion, & when his nonetheless ‘acclaimed’ short films & classic Knife in the Water were not ‘really welcome’, he took off to France once he could. A more liberal & civilised society. Soviet propaganda is no differed from US propaganda or any other – they ALL lie to the/ir people, & of course mostly about other countries. Or their people, famous or not. I’ve seen it with East German propaganda, vilifying the West wherever & however possible. But sooner or later, the people wake up & fight their own oppression. It happened to the East Germans as well, The Wall fell & they reunited with the West.

It’s a shame that you were brainwashed into this ‘delusion’ like Manson’s ‘Family’ was in a different way – like so many others in both cases – & you lost all that precious time to enjoy Polanski’s work as it was created, & not only decades later all in one go. But of course, it is never an excuse just to believe what the manipulative, lying media feeds us. If you live in a country or age that allows for it, there’s always the truth waiting somewhere hidden in between all the lies to be unearthed – one only needs the will to look for it, most people of course don’t want to unleash, since it would shatter their little delusions they have about someone. Of course, there are also those who still don’t believe in the facts – & never will, since it just doesn’t fit into their deluded world.

You’re a perfect example of how the public was & still is being manipulated, mishem – & how to beat it, find out that truth for yourself. I’m sure many did as you did. I know for a fact that I could help some on the path of that truth with my own efforts, my research, my passion to expose the truth, seek justice. If people want to believe that truth, is another question. Their choice, their loss if they don’t. I don’t even pity them – they’re no one. I know my work had a positive impact, since the comments prove it, & I found my own comments & blogs’ bits & pieces all over the place under different names where I had not posted them. It only showed that others shared my findings, no matter they never commented on them directly. I also had some emailing me to tell me how they believed in all these nasty lies about Polanski, the case, & after they read my findings could no longer. One ‘hater’ even jumped over his own shadow publicly when he commented on my blog how he was converted to the facts & felt ashamed he ever had been so ‘brainwashed’. That is all I wanted, to give people the choice to either believe in ugly lies others propagate with impunity & immunity, or stop & rethink, wake up, & realise that NOTHING is black & white, EVER. And that there are always TWO sides to a story – or even more.

Of course, I for one know & have all his work, & that all too prophetic little masterpiece, The Fat & the Lean. Your own résumé of how it would be Polanski’s own future is as profound as it is true – but I saw it even more fateful than that; that of the fat man being Rittenband, making Polanski dance after the beat of his drum, or gavel, till he escaped his invisible fetters & ran from his court back to France – only to be fettered again decades later for real, once more ab/used for political & personal gain. And true too, Manson & Watson, who had killed his very own wife & friends, were at Chino at the same time when Polanski was to end up there on the whim of this fat man, after abusing the law Polanski had trusted in, & how horrible the vision was had he ever come across them. Polanski had to be kept in protective custody, & how cruel indeed that he had to plead to that one count on the very day of Sharon’s own murder. While murderer Manson, who once abused a young boy at knife-point, is a cult figure, filmmaker Polanski, who once slept with a young girl, is unfairly demonised & whatever else people want him to be I shall not repeat this time.

Your analogy of a cycle is equally apt – as that is what life is – & that men like Polanski are very rare, their unique survival powers & skills, artistic or otherwise. Which is of course another reason why he must be destroyed, over & over & over. Only great & innocent men can be made small & guilty, by small & guilty people, or those in corrupt power. But it seems no man can take his life, but life itself – one day, hopefully very far away. Not the Nazis, not that bomb & grenade, not that murderous ‘bicycle thug’, not the Communists, not that car near-fatal accident, not the Manson Family, not corrupt Rittenband & Co/oley, or his backstabbing ex-lovers. Film kept Polanski alive from childhood on, his obsession & love for it, later women, as friends & fans, & a new family who stood by him, preserved his deserved dignity. His own son cut that fetter, that ‘anklet’. He hated it & freed his fettered father, after a wise decision was made to tell the US [courts] off, not return him to this ugly mire of corruptness & more ugly lies.

I know of others who prayed for him, & they all believed their prayers had been heard when he was freed – I knew they would not extradite him, once the ‘truth’ came out. Or Gunson, & Geimer, with their own pleas to stop this madness. Now that the online storm of hatred has died down again & another witch hunt is over, Polanski once more can do what he does best – make more acclaimed films – & the only thing he should be remembered for, is just that – film, NOTHING else. Of course Sharon to preserve her own legacy, NOT ever Manson, & never Geimer. No matter she tries hard to have the charges dismissed & his guilty plea vacated. It will never happen, not as long as Polanski is alive. But she of all had caused him the most of all pain, & her mother & sister. And ugly liar Lewis. Apart from the US injustice & degenerate lynch mob. And his mother’s & Sharon’s loss.

Now with Cooley deservedly having lost his AG race, & his little French-Polish mouse, one can only hope his own lies will soon be his undoing – to close that cycle. And case.

Thanks again mishem, for sharing your own thoughts with me, us – & as you said, there ARE people out there with more sense & honour, intelligence & integrity, one only needs to look for them. Right amongst the ugly lies & hatred that one day will consume them all – rightly so.

mishem

Posted December 3, 2010 at 10.41 AM

In reply to: Novalis Lore, of November 27, 2010 at 9:51 AM

Quote:
“Even though your comment is directed at Samskara…”

Oh no, Novalis, please don’t think I wasn’t talking to you! I addressed Samskara directly because I was replying to her dream, but it is your realm here, it’s thanks to you that the voice of sanity is heard, and every word I post here is directed to you by definition.

Quote:

“I never believed any of that preposterous garbage, while some still do it in their sad little delusions – just because he made ‘ONE’ film with a satanic thematic, at that time.”

But you see what is the most preposterous? Even that one film is not satanic by any means. Let alone the fact that it is intentionally ambiguous as far as the very existence of Satan is concerned, or the fact that the evil is remarkably unattractive there, devoid of any romantic disguise, if we only concentrate on the message we’ll see that, unlike Levin’s book, the main point of the film isn’t “how a woman gave birth to a child of Satan”, but the impossibility for an individual to win against a group, what an organized group can do to someone they single out as their target, and it doesn’t matter whether this group consists of Satanists, just ordinary neighbors, or media. In this sense, it is truly prophetic (again).

Quote:

“Now that the online storm of hatred has died down again & another witch hunt is over, Polanski once more can do what he does best – make more acclaimed films – & the only thing he should be remembered for, is just that – film, NOTHING else.”

Film, first and foremost; but also the miracle of his unique personality, his unbelievable destiny, survival ability, outstanding intelligence, magnanimity, moral integrity… he is worthy to be named the man of the century, and instead of this he is singled out for continuous stoning.

Quote:

“… you lost all that precious time to enjoy Polanski’s work as it was created.”

Not only this, Novalis. I lost a lot of time that could be used for doing what you are doing. It is not too late now, thank God

Your site will always be the cornerstone, the best source of information for everyone who wants (or is able) to know the truth; but the more sources like this exist, the less they will sound like a voice crying in the wilderness. Samskara is another wonderful example of the good work; I have been doing what I can on this site:

http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?10975-Roman-Polanski

(the linked thread and elsewhere), but I feel that it is not enough. I want to go over to Russian internet, and have a blog both in Russian and in English, where I will treat our subject in a form a little different (differently structured, I mean) from yours. I hope you wouldn’t mind if I quoted you profusely, or if I asked you a few questions.

I have to apologize in advance if some of my questions have already been answered somewhere in this site; I am doing a reread now, but what with English not being my first language, and my universe being very different from the one you’re all living in, I might miss or misunderstand something.

Novalis Lore

Posted December 5, 2010 at 10.48 AM

Thanks again for your support and kind words, mishem, they mean a lot. Feel free to use my findings – as long as you quote & link the source – or ask me whatever you need to know. Your grasp & expression of English is very good, & I doubt there will be language barriers. I realise that Russia is a world apart, but so is the US, trust me.

And you’re perfectly right about Rosemary’s Baby being what you quoted – as are all Polanski films – a struggle against [the] ‘others’ by an ‘outsider’, or isolated individual/s entering a totally different world as in What?, The Ghost [Writer], even Oliver Twist or Knife in the Water, where the ‘outsider’ ‘upsets’ everything. Be it a run by a coven of Satanists or some racist neighbours as seen in the brilliant Tenant who encroach on [the] ‘other/s’, or even as seen in the funny Dance of the Vampires being surrounded by bloodsuckers. People who have to deal with ‘intruders’, as in the farcical Cul de Sac or Holocaust milestone The Pianist.

And you’re right, Polanski should also be remembered for his eternal survivor image & all you mentioned, not only his films, & to most it will be just that, while to many it will only be his oh so ‘heinous act’ of 1977, yet give others a pass for the same – or worse.

As for your own efforts to expose & spread the truth, keep up the good work – to join the league of the more enlightened & all you said.

mishem

Posted December 6, 2010 at 5.52 PM

Thank you Novalis! (Can never ever thank you enough!)

Of course, I will quote and link the source – there’s no source like this one; as I said, it is the cornerstone, the alpha and omega. What I want to do is to make a concise compendium, structured the way even an idiot could understand what is what. I will link you to it as soon as I’m done.

Here’s the first set of my questions (my apologies again if I miss something in the text which answers them):

1. I remember seeing, somewhere in the Net, transcripts of quite a lot of testimonies; now the only thing I can find is the notorious Geimer’s Grand Jury testimony (and, thank God, Polanski’s probation report – I have saved it in case it disappears). I know, however, that I had also seen the doctor’s testimony, and the mother’s. Do you by any chance know where I can find them?

2. Is there a complete transcript of Ms. Geimer medical examination? I especially need the exact quote in which she is called “adult female”.

3. Ditto of Mr. Polanski psyche evaluation? Is the following quote taken from that document? “There was no evidence that the offense was in any way characterized by destructive or insensitive attitude toward the victim. Polanski’s attitude was undoubtedly seductive, but considerate. The relationship with his victim developed from an attitude of professionalism, to playful mutual eroticism. Polanski seems to have been unaware at the time that he was involving himself in a criminal offense, an isolated instance of naiveté.” Is there any source I can refer to?

4. Is there any text of his testimony?

5. I know (and you mentioned that, too) that he gave an account of what happened in his book, “Roman par Polanski”; however, I won’t be able to get it till (hopefully) somewhere in June – Amazon doesn’t deliver where I live, and I can’t think of any other way I could get it. So, maybe you can post some excerpts? I know it’s only a few pages, maybe you can scan them, or something?

6. You say, “legally a ‘child’ is only someone under the age of twelve, male or female.” This I understand. Then, in the next paragraph, you say, “according to new definitions of ‘child sex’, i.e., underage sex with an adolescent, i.e., NOT prepubescent, a ‘child’ now is anyone under eighteen. Voila, as the French would say. The UN, the US, and Europe too have adopted that ludicrous blanket definition.” You lost me here. So, what is legally considered a “child”, where and by whom?

7. I still fail to understand why Samantha and her mother went to the police. If they wanted to use Polanski to get to the movies / modeling, why didn’t they go through with the plan? What did they gain by reporting him? Mother never sounded to me, from what I’ve read, like someone who would just get carried away by a moral urge and act on that impulse. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had tried to blackmail him person-to-person, but a rape cry wouldn’t seem to get them anywhere. Or was it actually a case of, as it were, legalized blackmail – as the author of the “eats shoots ‘n leaves” blog says, “for the victim and her family, the ideal outcome would be a guilty plea to any one of the charges so that they could pursue a lawsuit to seek civil damages outside of the media spotlight’s glare”? Or a moment of lunacy? What would your own, personal theory of their motives be?

Novalis Lore

Posted December 10, 2010 at 3.05 PM

I will send you related documents as PDFs per email I hope you can open since they are original court documents only obtainable in that format, which are not available as online links – & cannot be posted here in that form. They include the entire court transcripts of Geimer, her family, that of the examining doctor who couldn’t establish any penetration at all, the lab technician who examined her underwear, & the first officer who interviewed her. They contain Polanski’s complete plea statement, his probation report that includes the ‘adult female’ reference & medical details that clearly show no force in any form was used & his own statement as to the events, which answer your questions #1, 2, 3, 4. They include evidence as to the misconduct by Rittenband & a complete transcript of lying DA Wells’ interview used in the documentary Wanted & Desired – of which only a few minutes were used. They also include the two petitions by Geimer that Polanski should be left alone basically. As for #5, I can scan you the relevant pages of Polanski’s autobiography & how he recalls the sequence of events & send them to you later.

As for #6, what I meant is, in today’s common language in the [western] media & general population everyone uses terms like ‘child’ or ‘child sex’, which is technically wrong, just so to make it sound more horrible & make Polanski a ‘child rapist’, rather than say what it really was, underage sex with an adolescent minor, i.e., not sex with a ‘prepubescent child’ as people in general believe Geimer was. She passed for up to 20 years old & was extremely developed despite her chronological age. The only relevant images of how she looked are shown in that documentary, not the few photos flying around. Unfortunately our ‘sex language’ has changed so radically that anyone under eighteen or any age of consent is considered a ‘child’ today, because of extreme feminist views that infantilise every female, & feminist-influenced laws. That’s why I said the US & Europe have adopted such ludicrous blanket definition that makes every minor a ‘child’ no matter their actual age. So legally a child is still someone under 12 years in general according to US laws, or European laws according to country, someone who cannot reproduce yet basically, which is usually below the age if 13.

As for #7, what Brenneman said is his own view many share. What I believe is that the jealous sister egged on the mother to call the cops after she overheard Geimer telling her boyfriend that she had champagne, then took a third of as Quaalude with Polanski & then had sex after the photoshoot & Jacuzzi – with no indication or rape even in her talk to him given in her testimony, & the mother hastily grabbed the phone to cry rape because she was underage. I think Geimer embellished on what happened, added the ‘reluctance’, ‘fear’ to make her utterly unaccountable, & the anal sex & that Huston interrupted them for reasons unknown – but most likely on coercion of Vannatter or ‘others’ (since Vannatter had blackmailed Huston into saying she had interrupted them or be charged with drugs offences), or it was her own idea since we don’t have her actual first statement she gave to the cop who visited them that could make it clear if she had told him about the anal intercourse there already, Polanski denied. Geimer never wanted her mother to get the law involved & said so often enough, but by then it was too late & it all went wrong from there. That’s why they didn’t want a trial where she would have been found out that she wasn’t quite that truthful & had been shredded by the defence. The prosecution or family could have demanded prison time or a higher charge plea deal had there been any proof of her rape/sodomy, reluctance/fear, drunk/drugged claims – but there was not & that’s why they dropped the other charges. Polanski only pleaded to underage sex, or had to, purely for her age. Otherwise the case had been thrown out at no evidence backing up her claims.

mishem

Posted December 16, 2010 at 8.25 AM

I have found some of the transcripts, and read a thing that shocked me deeply – is it possible that I misunderstood something? Expert says the stain on the panties is semen with a 90% probability, but he can’t be 100% sure because he failed to find any spermatozoa. When asked what it could mean, he says it may happen if the “individual” who left the stain has undergone a vasectomy. Then they ask Larson, and he confirms: yes, a vasectomy, or anyway if the “individual” is sterile, that is, unable to produce posterity.

Well? Whoever the hell left the stain, it was obviously not Polanski. How after this they could take anything told by mother or daughter seriously is totally beyond me. Or why they didn’t charge them both with trying to deceive the authorities.

Novalis Lore

Posted December 16, 2010 at 12.00 PM

You’re right – & I covered that at great length in my blogs. It most certainly cannot come from Polanski, since he obviously is neither sterile nor had a vasectomy. So unless the stain is from her boyfriend, or her mother’s boyfriend (or others), the panties could well be her sister’s, or even mother’s. Or, Vannatter & his lot had a game going there. Told you they messed with evidence.

mishem

Posted December 16, 2010 at 6.21 PM

Of course you covered it, I remember it now! It’s that too much information fell onto my head in these few months, and some things are so enormous, so incredible that my mind kinda refuses to accept them. I’ve been analyzing whatever transcripts I have at the moment, and good Lord, wonders never cease. I can’t believe anyone in their right mind could overlook the blatancy of the whole thing.

Novalis Lore

Posted December 16, 2010 at 6.45 PM

Indeed – the only problem is that people don’t want to look deeper, or even believe the facts when they see them. Unlike you, they will continue living in their dark world of drugged rape & sodomy that never happened. You’re the best example of how to change such ignorance.

mishem

Posted December 23, 2010 at 7.48 AM

Dear Novalis,

thank you so much for the documents! I’m studying them now.

Back to the question of the panties, there’s one thing I can’t understand: I’ve just watched Wanted & Desired once again, and it seems to me that what they say there is in contradiction with the documents. They (namely, Silver) make it seem as if this piece of evidence appeared much later, and could actually prove something:

“The LAPD brought the evidence envelope to this courthouse building and brought it in, actually, to this room. (…) and someone takes it and turns and opens it, and out falls these little girl’s panties.” (…) What we understood was that Dalton was going to take his half and submit it to a lab. I also understood that the lab was about to give its report in two weeks. And two weeks and three days later, Dalton called me on the phone, clearly now, I think, having the results on the lab report, saying, “You know, what do you think would happen if we pursued a plea bargain with the prosecution?” At which point… at that point, I realized that now Polanski had an interest, that the stain in the panties was gonna be brutal evidence for them.”

But it just couldn’t have happened this way, could it?

Novalis Lore

Posted December 28, 2010 at 8.40 AM

‘Little girl’s panties’? Geimer was no ‘little girl’ anymore. And you’re right – that is not what happened.

I know that they cut the pair in half & tested it, but before the indictment hearing two weeks after Polanski was arrested, on March 24. They were tested on March 14 – according to the very court papers. Silver is clearly perverting the facts when he says they were the ‘reason’ for the plea bargain when they were not. The plea deal was struck only in August, FIVE months later, right on Tate’s death anniversary of all days, NOT because of these panties that clearly showed no spermatozoid in the deposited semen that could never have come from Polanski since he’s not infertile.

Silver makes it sound as if the panties were incriminating proof of Polanski’s guilt to back up Geimer’s version, or that they were tested much later, when Geimer & Silver clearly lied. I pointed to that often enough – or that Geimer just keeps batting her lashes in agreement with him, knowing exactly the panties were not stained by Polanski’s semen at no ejaculate of his touching her body or the panties nowhere near them both when he climaxed. The stains are clearly not from him. That ‘brutal evidence’ therefore means exactly the opposite – it would have proven that she had lied – hence the plea deal to avoid a trial to be found out by hard evidence like that, apart from no medical proof of ANY penetration.

But the panties would not have been admissible anyway because they were not taken off her body directly after the events, but her hands brought from her bedroom, if they were the same panties she had worn that day in the first place – or maybe someone else’s. The stains could have come from her boyfriend, her mother’s boyfriend or any other interfile man she had slept with before, hence her not falling pregnant (unless she WAS on the Pill). In those days it was impossible to determine exactly how old a stain like this might be or from whom it came before the days of DNA testing, but they cannot come from Polanski at any rate since they were found in the gusset, crotch area, & not on the back where she had said he had ejaculated all over her & inside her anus. It’s all a lie & the attorneys knew that – hence no trial. THAT is why Dalton called Silver to go for that plea deal to get it over with they all had agreed on.

Silver’s statement clearly contradicts the court papers citing when the panties were tested, & what was found. That of course is evidence no one knows of, & if they would, could no longer think Polanski had raped & sodomised her at no other physical evidence supporting that to start with either. They all read only her statement taken out of context, but not the vital rest of the entire indictment hearing/findings that clearly exonerate him, & show what fantasies she partly came up with, her mother & sister merely backed up in varying forms to make her entirely unaccountable for her own part in it. They all lied. Except Polanski.

mishem

Posted January 14, 2011 at 4.09 PM | In reply to Novalis Lore

Of course, I agree with every word you say, and it is stinks to high heaven that the “evidence” was corrupted; what puzzles me is why Zenovich bought it? She seems to swallow it whole, without any comment from her part, but she should have known it was all wrong? What could her motivation have been, since she apparently endeavored to expose the miscarriage of justice that took (and is still taking) place?

Novalis Lore

Posted January 17, 2011 at 10.29 PM | In reply to mishem

Zenovich no doubt knows better, but is like any other ‘researcher’; they only see or use what they ‘want’ – true or not, & is apparently a ‘friend’ of Geimer’s ever since her documentary. Though she exposed the misconducts through Gunson & Dalton, she studiously avoided correcting Geimer & Silver, or included relevant facts that exonerate Polanski, readily available to even people like me, who have no means of producing a documentary. Let’s see how her next documentation/follow-up pans out she started when Polanski was rearrested, this time with his co-operation. Maybe THAT will shed more light on the FACTS. Legally or otherwise.

mishem

Posted January 19, 2011 at 3.52 PM | In reply to Novalis Lore

Dear Novalis,

since you said somewhere you didn’t watch the latest King/Geimer interview, here’s the transcript:

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1010/07/lkl.01.html

I’ve been reading her interviews and it’s truly amazing, how she alters facts every time to suit the particular circumstances of the particular interview. I mean, she is a thorough liar, throughout the years. Regarding this, I have a couple more questions:

1. Where does the information of her necking mother’s boyfriend in front of Rittenband’s office come from? Is there any source?

2. Ditto her having sex more than “once” (which “once” she repeatedly says in various interviews): you say Dalton had information of her having had several partners; is there any source for this?

Novalis Lore

Posted January 20, 2011 at 6.44 AM

Re the interview (thanks!) – Dalton did not request a psyche evaluation to establish if what Geimer claimed was ‘entirely fantasy’, but to establish the parts they assumed, & we know now in fact, WERE ‘fantasy’, or lies, & I wished they had imposed the evaluation to establish what was invented by her & what not, for the case to be thrown out.

Re ‘private stuff’ published about her after his arrest, that’s nonsense, the court transcripts are out on the net since 2003 – in order to boycott Polanski’s Oscar nomination for The Pianist, which failed – & what was released in the extradition papers is exactly the same. Omitting, of course, anything as to HIS defence in any form.

That transcript is not quite factual in places, since I have seen most of it now (or couldn’t have included any of it in my analyses already then). King never said, “…he ‘raped’ you (why are you so forgiving?”) he only asked why she is so forgiving. Besides, if it had been actual rape, she’d not ever forgiven him. No genuine rape victim would do so.

Silver said: “[Had] He [Rittenband] had not done what he did, then Polanski would have pled guilty.” That’s nonsense, Polanski pleaded guilty to that one count in August ‘77, & he went to Chino in December/January 1977/8, long before Rittenband would break the deal in February. I noticed that Silver gets a lot of details wrong.

Silver is such a liar anyway, consensual underage sex is not ‘rape by force’, not even in the law books, it’s, ‘statutory rape’, i.e., NOT forcible but unlawful sexual intercourse. ‘Rape by force’ is violent, forcible intercourse’, or violent physical & or mental ‘force’ used to force sex, i.e., forcible physical & or mental coercion. And, ‘rape by use of drugs’ was not ever proven either – he’s talking hypothetical claims that were never challenged in a trial, he of course conveniently forgot to mention. He has no clues about the law, or simply rephrases it to suit her claims. Just like she does, as you noticed, to suit a particular interview with varying accounts. Or she simply forgets what she had said before, or even in her original testimony, of which neither can be factual, since, what really happened would never be forgotten she obviously cannot suddenly state.

Geimer saying: “She [Huston] never got a look at me. I kind of left quickly without really saying hello to her. So she never saw me,” is utterly contrary to what she in fact stated in her own testimony, where she said that she DID meet Huston still sitting by the phone, after Huston had asked her directly if she is the girl Polanski is photographing, & Geimer replied yes, & then only left – after Polanski had introduced her to Huston & she DID say ‘hello’ to her. Otherwise, Huston could not have said that ‘the girl’ was ‘rude’ to her, who [Huston] did NOT testify that she in fact ‘interrupted’ them both in that TV room. Geimer puts forth pure assumptions what Huston was ‘thinking’, might be pissed off that they were there, which is not quite the case, since she by then was told by the caretaker that they were there, or hadn’t in fact known of the photoshoot. Huston in actual fact was NOT living with Nicholson at that time anymore (or at the house) & had no say as to who was to come & go. Polanski had the use of that TV room whenever he was in LA ever since he made Chinatown five years earlier. To say that Huston was ‘disturbed there was a girl in the room’, is BS, Huston knew Polanski brought his dates there, & knew a ‘girl’ must be there, or no photo shoot. She said that she doesn’t believe Polanski would ever rape or sodomise an unwilling girl. So Geimer is talking BS. And Vannatter must have told her about her accusations, since she could not have known about the sodomy claim otherwise that early.

Now that I read the entire interview, I’m even more appalled. Geimer  said: “I called my friend, an ex-boyfriend, but a close friend…” while in her testimony & other interviews, she, her mother & her half-sister said that it was her ‘current boyfriend’ she had called & was talking to (which her sister then overheard), NOT some ‘ex boyfriend’. How much more ‘ex’ can her boyfriends date back with ‘only’ 13/14, which would also explain that she had more boyfriends & sex than she even told the court of, or Polanski. That would be why Dalton said that there were more boyfriends/men he had unearthed, wanted to interview, & is the answer to your second question. Dalton talked about that in several interviews from the days, of which a snippet can be seen in Zenovich’s documentary, where he informed the press there were more men ‘the girl’ has sexual relations with, & wanted to investigate why they had never been charged with statutory rape, Rittenband unfortunately ‘discouraged’.

Equally saying: “They found evidence in his room,” is another distortion – all they found in his hotel room was the [partial topless] photos he had taken of her before, & that one Quaalude he wanted to give his friend, her own sister’s boyfriend’s (Polanski’s own friend) ‘pal’ had given him the evening before – just so to be ‘caught’ with it, since he had his own Quaalude that were of lower strength than the Quaalude they had found at Nicholson’s place, she herself identified as a higher strength, while Polanski had to ask her if they in fact were Quaalude. Classic set-up. If the ‘topless’ photos amount to any ‘evidence’, since he never denied having taken them, but Geimer conveniently forgot to mention they were partially topless, is a far stretch. It’s the main reason for this entire drama, since Geimer never told her mother of them Polanski explicitly had asked to go through & take out the ones she didn’t like. They also obviously found out that the Quaalude they both had found at the house were not his own, hence did not ‘furnish’ them.

Also, court records clearly show there was NO evidence of even the slightest vaginal, let alone anal intercourse after the rape kit exam done a mere four hours later, & the ‘semen evidence’ didn’t hold water to start with since Polanski was not infertile. Geimer & Silver keep promoting things as if fact despite no trial having proven any of it. The evidence they in fact had, entirely disproved her claims from early on, which then led to that plea deal. Ergo, both lie as it pleases them – or Silver is so dumb to believe her, forgetting the actual evidence. Not sure which he is, but he certainly repeats [her own] falsehoods.

Also, saying: KING: Did you hate him? GEIMER: “No. Not even — not even when he denied it [the sex],” is another lie. Polanski pleaded not guilty to the initial charges on his arraignment as one is advised to do, & then explained what happened in his own testimony as part of the probation report, which clearly states that he slept with her once (i.e. had NO anal sex let alone twice), & did NOT deny the sex. If he in fact had maintained that argument of ‘denial’, they’d have had NO evidence whatsoever to ever force him to plead guilty to that one count. Besides, he recounted it in his autobiography, so how is that ‘denial’.

Funny how she did not correct King (or Silver) when he said, “He raped you…” & she went “Yeah…” while before she never used the word rape in any form to describe the events, not even in her testimony, but said ‘it wasn’t rape, he wasn’t forceful’ etc. pp. She constantly contradicts herself.

To say she only sued Polanski because she thought his autobiography was an ‘attempt to exploit the events for money’ is also more than BS. Another lie or assumption. It was an attempt to put the record straight & to voice his side of the events, he had a perfect right to do. She only sued him because he said what really happened & exposed that she had an affair with her mother’s boyfriend. Not for ‘money’ – he had enough money by then again & didn’t care for it other than to invest it in a new film.

King is an idiot, he only fuelled the misguided ‘child rapist’ rhetoric with one of his remarks to that effect. A teenager is not a child even by law, but adolescent, & Polanski is not a rapist. A rapist has forcible intercourse, not underage sex the ‘teenager’ could have aborted at ANY TIME herself, & if she really had told him off, he’d let her be.

Saying: “I never blamed myself. But I didn’t feel like I made the smartest choices that day. Looking back it would have been wise to do things differently. But I was only 13, so –“ is pretty arrogant & dismissive of her own crucial part in it no matter her ‘age’ she constantly brings in as excuse, or the actions of her highly negligent mother. Geimer was far more intelligent being able to ‘do things differently’ that day, or would not be a 9th grader meant for 15 year olds with better ‘social skills’ & higher intellect/knowledge. As in, not drink the champagne SHE took herself, which was NOT ‘provided’ by him, (hence no charge). NOT take the Quaalude he did NOT force on her either, & NOT let him have sex with her if she didn’t want him to – but tell him off more directly for him to really ‘stop’. She let him do what he did & not unwillingly, no question about it, & then tried to wriggle herself out of it purely for her age, & NONE of those who allowed her to have sex & drugs & alcohol BEFORE she met Polanski to start with were ever punished for any of it. THAT is wrong. Not underage sex that forces people to lie about it & then land adults in prison to be raped there.

About that ‘note’, if it really said that it was not her ‘mother’s fault’, he however has not excluded Geimer having been at fault [too] (since she let him have sex with her), while in fact, he always had no sympathy for her mother ever since (or her sister) for having done this to him (as so stated in his autobiography) – while they got away with it all & the other ‘men’ Geimer had slept with while she was still underage & even younger. Including her own older boyfriend, & that of Gailey, who [Gailey] most likely did not know of having an affair with her own daughter, who was Polanski’s age. Which Dalton in  fact found very wrong, & rightly so, if they just pick & choose who to accuse of rape, & doge the law.

And to answer your first question (I actually covered several times in my analyses), of where the info stems from of this ‘affair’; the primary source is found in Polanski’s autobiography, or of course court records, since Gunson’s clerk had told Rittenband about his observation (that happened outside Gunson’s office), who (or Gunson) then told Dalton, who then told Polanski – or he wouldn’t in fact know of it, & was in fact a factor to go to trial, before they then changed it to that plea deal to cut it short & safe Polanski a lot of money). I will copy the entire events pages for you later, but of the uncorrected advance reader copy, which contains several more crucial/explanatory (events) details the eventually officially published bio does NOT. Or you could just buy a cheap copy on Ebay, which is good enough.

mishem

Posted January 21, 1011, at 10.33 AM

Buying a copy, cheap or expensive, at eBay or any other place, is what I can only dream of; unfortunately, eBay doesn’t work for Russia. I hope to be able to come to UK next spring, and by then will have a copy delivered to a friend’s address, but it’s such a long time from now!

Everything you’re saying about Geimer and Silver is true, of course… not a single detail is the same in various Geimer’s accounts of what “happened”: every account contradicts every other, and/or her GJ testimony. She invents stuff ad hoc, whatever she thinks would sound better at a given moment. Sometimes what she says is outrageous in its enormity (like, saying that he “gave” her the Quaalude in guise of a medicine when she faked that asthma attack AFTER the jacuzzi – a base, indecent lie), sometimes just an attempt to look better (and bury HIM deeper at the same time, but she just doesn’t care), but always lies, lies heaping on top of one another, contradicting one another… and the reading/watching public swallows it all, every time taking her every lying word as the holy truth. That is why I believe enlightenment is so important. For every 100 people who are incapable of thinking, there must be at least one capable… and for every 100 of those, at least one willing to hear. That is why it is so important for me to get all my sources right, and I am sorry if I bother you with my questions – I never question your or Polanski’s words, but I know my readers will question mine.

What struck me as funny is what she said about his memoirs. As you said, “To say she only sued Polanski because she thought his autobiography was an ‘attempt to exploit the events for money’ is also more than BS. Another lie or assumption.” – but in addition to this, it is a wonderful joke, to allege that the greatest director of all times, a man of unparalleled biography and outstanding brilliance would need something as pathetic as the character of Samantha Geimer to sell his book. The public found it plausible, too, I presume, like everything else.

On a more optimistic note, here’s a very short video of Polanski being awarder by Prix Lumières:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ZLjcnuhDk&NR=1

Novalis Lore

Posted January 23, 2011 at 11.10 AM

Shame you can’t go on Ebay – didn’t realise that.

All Geimer & Silver say should be seriously challenged, (hence her unwillingness to face a trial), to stop them misleading the public, though what they say on the whole still rings true in part re the legal facts which is much more important, but most don’t pay any attention to.

At any rate, I will tackle his autobiography & scan you the relevant pages of the more in-depth advance reader copy & forward them to you by email.

Thanks for the vid – let’s hope Polanski will get another award for his Ghost Writer at the upcoming Cesars.

mishem

Submitted on 2011/03/11 at 7:26 AM

Did you already see this?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/roman-polanski-victim-moves-on-13103200

Good morning, America! The 34th anniversary of the Crime of the Century. Why don’t they make it a national holiday?

Novalis Lore

Submitted on 2011/03/11 at 10:12 AM | In reply to mishem.

Yeah, I saw that. I will update my blog here shortly to add Geimer’s interview accordingly – after all the awards for The Ghost [Writer] & new film in production. And true, why not make it a regular thing to remind everyone what oh so heinous crime he committed all these years back Geimer of all wants to see dropped. And mind you, the new AG might just be able to help with that & is probably why Geimer gave that interview now that Cooley is out the race. Harris could force Cooley to drop the case, or do the time-served-sentencing thing to close it finally.

http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/kamala-harris-weighs-cooley-and-polanski-case-22116

But here it the actual interview with Geimer your link is missing. I loved it how she trashed Cooley & Co!

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/exclusive-roman-polanski-victim-blames-media-13103307

mishem

Submitted on 2011/03/11 at 5:36 PM | In reply to Novalis Lore.

Thank you! But I am currently going through a phase of deeply loathing Geimer and anything Geimer-related: I’ve been analysing all her interviews, and some lies she invents ad hoc are just too despicable (like when she says he gave her the Quaalude under guise of a medicine for her “asthma”, so she didn’t know what she was taking. Pathetic, cruel and filthy lie). I am very close to finishing my blog, which, as I said, should complement yours, being a shorter version; now working on structurizing and clarifying all minute details, trying to make it an easy read even an idiot can understand; there will be English, Russian and French version.

I’ve had a wonderful experience recently – inadvertently got into a discussion with another hopeless blogger who judged the case without knowing shit about it. Since he asked me to keep to the facts, he apparently deprived himself of the right to say “guilty regardless of the circumstances” (that gem his colleague spurted out once); I suggested that he learned the real facts, gave him an overview and all necessary links, and recommended that he either study the case in depth or keep silence about it. To which he replied that he was not going to undertake any such studies because he didn’t believe me and thought I made everything up myself.

Priceless, isn’t it? A big step forward, as far as self-exposure goes. They feel that something is desperately wrong with the world they live in, and block out any information that might disturb their precarious balance of lies.

Novalis Lore

Submitted on 2011/04/15 at 2:35 AM | In reply to mishem.

Sorry that it took so long to reply, but I had very little time to do anything & then my computer packed up. I have gone through your own blog by now & it is admirably conceptualised & a gem in our fight for Polanski, & that he most certainly is NOT what people believe he is, as you have noticed yourself often enough. Other than a brilliant filmmaker & should finally be released from his ‘fugitive status’, & bullshit peodophile rapist label.

I have added you to my blogroll & here’s the link to your own blog I highly recommend.

http://polanski-oddmanout.blogspot.com/

I will update my own later, & thank you for linking back to my extensive chronicling of the complex case & events ever since Polanski was rearrested nearly two years ago.

mishem

Submitted on 2011/04/18 at 11:25 AM | In reply to Novalis Lore.

Thank you a HUGE lot both for your kind words (you being the highest authority on the matter, your praise is truly priceless) and linking my blog. I have been posting the link around, at the sites where comments are allowed; I endeavored to state all the facts as clearly as possible, so they would be clear even for the intellectually challenged, who, regrettably, seem to constitute the majority. It is extremely hard to fight a prejudice so deeply rooted. I will go on linking our blogs – yours, Samskara’s, and mine; maybe at least one of a thousand (though it may be too optimistic… ok, one in five thousand) will try to think

mishem

Submitted on 2011/05/19 at 11:04 AM

OH SHIT – now with that Dominique Strauss-Kahn thing I fully anticipate a new wave of hatred, witch-hunt, ignorance and bloodthirst.

I have already posted here

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelweiss/100088341/dominique-strauss-kahn-roman-polanski-and-the-lefts-trouble-with-rape-allegations/

Let’s see how long my comment will survive…

Novalis Lore

Submitted on 2011/05/21 at 11:18 PM | In reply to mishem.

Sorry I didn’t reply as quickly as I usually do – VERY busy. I thank you again for thanking me, mishem. THE TRUTH MUST BE KNOWN & disseminated wherever possible, if people like it or not. People have a right to their own opinion – BUT NOT TO THEIR OWN FACTS, i.e., NOT facts.

Novalis Lore

Submitted on 2011/05/21 at 11:20 PM | In reply to mishem.

The blind hatred is already full-blown & most certainly misplaced. So far your good comments are still there. GOOD JOB.

Sonny

Submitted on 2011/06/12 at 3:49 AM

Is Arnie protected by Hollywood, Santa Monica,…or is Arnie like a character in the movie “Chinatown”? Or better yet “The Tenant of Chinatown”

“Chinatown” was a movie about sexual affairs in Los Angeles, which Roman Polanski directed in 1974. But isn’t Arnie’s latest story – about the history of Los Angeles repeating itself in real time over and over again in California –
I am talking about the cover – up of extra marital affairs and out of wedlock children by former Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Remember Arnold Schwarzenegger who when Roman Polanski was imprisoned in Switzerland – said that Roman Polanski should be treated like everyone else, which is a pretty hypocritical statement in view of Arnie’s cover up of his OWN extra-marital sexual conduct and his out of wedlock children which he hid from Maria Shriver, his own children, and the people of California for years. Shades of “Rosemary’s Baby” – what is in the next room? Causing alot, alot, alot of HURT. Seems he only thought of himself and could not be honest – such was his need for power – and to be the Governor of California.

And it is no coincidence that Arnold Schwarzenegger ties right into Santa Monica & its College with Arnold’s cover up of extra marital affairs and cover up of out of wedlock children because the former Superintendant of Santa Monica College , Piedad Robertson advised Arnold Schwartzenneger in Education when he was about to become California Governor – See http://www.smc.edu/corsair/Archives/102203/nw/spt_102203.htm

printed on Oct 22nd, police brutality day in 2003.

Former Superintendant of Santa Monica College Piedad Robertson helped me to be beaten up in a Santa Monica courtroom on Oct 6th 1998 by allowing her Santa Monica College police to cover-up that I had been sexually molested in a class at Santa Monica College from behind by the instructor, by allowing her Santa Monica College lawyers & police to threaten and frame me, which resulted in my being assaulted and battered in a Santa Monica Courtroom and revictimized, in front of a Judge whose dad was a law school friend of Richard Nixon.

Does Santa Monica College have a class in cover-up and did Arnold Schwarzenegger take it, along with the Santa Monica College Police and the ex Superintendent Piedad Robertson, and the Santa Monica Judge and on and on and on and it never ends.

Novalis Lore

Submitted on 2011/06/28 at 1:19 AM | In reply to Sonny.

Your analogies are spot-on, Sonny – as usual. It is indeed history repeating itself, & another shameful double standard when to comes to the rich & powerful. Arnie got away with his own long-term statutory rape of a minor at the same time as Polanski had a one-off fling with Geimer & was never done for it & even pardoned over it by his predecessor, then messed up California decades later, & now he has to go back to ever-forgiving Hollywood, getting on & not being an all too good actor to begin with. But no worries, he sucked the State dry & can live off his royalties just nicely – unlike others with MUCH more talent. Like Polanski.

Sonny
Submitted on 2011/07/13 at 3:17 AM

Happy one year anniversary of release and SWISS JUSTICE DENYING extradition of Polanski from Switzerland to USA.

Of course Novalis Lore with this blog have been a great support to Roman Polanski…

And also Marina Zenovich et al, for her courage to make the documentary “Polanski: Wanted and Desired” and for retrieving precious ancient film footage of what really went down at the Santa Monica Courthouse in 1977 and 1978.

I trust Roman Polanski fully appreciates what she did in part for him and FOR CALIFORNIA JUSTICE.

And of course not to forget former Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson’s courage to tell the truth. I hope he is well!!!

Also many hundreds of others in addition to his many lawyers on both sides of the pond have supported and helped Roman Polanski to be and to remain free.

http://laregledujeu.org/2010/05/02/1397/i-can-remain-silent-no-longer/

http://dankprofessor.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/lynch-mobs-love-polanski/

http://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/now-online-roman-polanski-wanted-and-desired/

http://www.crimefilenews.com/search/label/Roman%20Polanski

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/polanski/Swiss_reject_extradition_request_for_Polanski.html?cid=17950322

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/polanski/Polanski_verdict_makes_legal_sense.html?cid=17955298

Once again Happy First Anniversary of freedom to Roman Polanski…And many more to come…

Novalis Lore

Submitted on 2011/07/15 at 1:23 AM | In reply to Sonny.

I too hope Gunson is well, though whatever cancer he has to endure might prove an untimely end. We never heard from him again & he indeed did a courageous thing to speak up for Polanski, & he was the prosecution, with a CONSCIENCE trying to end this farce. But alas, because of crooked Cooley & Co it never did & never will before Polanski himself is gone & the case will simply be closed. In a country where the law doesn’t even listen to the side of the ‘victim’ to drop the case & dismiss all charges, though Geimer never considered herself Polanski’s victim, is seriously flawed & has no respect for the law or any ‘victims’.

Thank you for your own support, Sonny, to thank me for mine & that of others, & let’s include Samskara’s own great efforts to show the blind haters what REALLY happened on her own blog, & a commenter-turned serious blogger, mishem, who did a brilliant analysis of the case himself.

http://samskara.org/journal/

http://polanski-oddmanout.blogspot.com/

As Assange once said, TRUTH WILL OUT. One day.

Sonny

Submitted on 2011/11/03 at 5:55 AM

Novalis, sorry to hear this on the news today. I hope all is ok with you!

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-assange-extradite-20111103,0,5241869.story

Novalis Lore

Submitted on 2011/11/04 at 2:37 AM | In reply to Sonny.

I’m furious, I tell you. FUCKING FURIOUS! There was NO reason to dismiss this appeal – we KNOW the accusations are trumped-up BS & far from being ‘serious offences’. The ‘Justices’ acted contrary to all logic, commons sense & even rule of freaking law, no matter what they say! I hate the UK courts, I hate the damned fascist legal system here! All they do is pander to the militant US who imposed that damned European Arrest Warrant on us in the name of that already trumped-up ‘war on terror’ BS!

I was inside the Court & in fact had expected the outcome, I’m a pessimist – not to get disappointing in case things go wrong – but this was SHAMEFUL! I was there with others & some even cried. That day ‘justice’ DIED, I tell ya. What’s worse, now every other far less ‘famous’ poor bastard can be extradited on the flimsiest accusations without any evidence, let alone ever having been charged with anything! This is WRONG! It was designed for people accused of serious crimes to be extradited for prosecution &/or sentencing, NOT for some fucking condom-less sex that occurs every second on this planet, or to be merely questioned! He can be interviewed HERE & Sweden refused! And don’t even start with the accusations by feminazi Ardin ‘woman A’, we KNOW is BS in itself to even think they’re ‘sex crimes’, & we KNOW ‘woman B’ Wilen wasn’t ‘asleep’ either & she never told Assange to stop without any condom at any rate. It’s all BULLSHIT!

I doubt the Court will grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, unless this case can be made an example by addressing the wider issues, AS the abuse of that EAW, or that no evidence is needed to fast-track detainees, which should be law TO produce actual evidence. The ruling was outrageous, after they in fact had noted several irregularities in the entire thing last time & suddenly it’s all gone puff, maybe someone leaned on them. There was clear abuse of due process from early on on every front & plenty interested ‘parties’ are having their dirty fingers in this political game to stir it up some more. This will not end nicely. BUT, the more Assange is being attacked now even il/legally, the more his supporters will fight on, the more might even join his cause, since what HE’s suffering now as an individual, can happen to ANY of us, & we’d be even less fortunate or helped than he is – we’d be wholly fucked. THAT is what this case must highlight. Oh, & that Sweden is a fascist feminazi stronghold where all men are second-class citizens & generally viewed as rapists, where women get away with the same ‘offences’, just for being ‘women’. Repulsive.

At any rate, I’m in fact positively surprised at the comments in that article after usually only the negative ones are left – since the US tried their best to brand Assange a terrorist & rapist, but the guiltiest party of such blatant lies here in the UK is smear king The Guardian with their ugly, libellous attacks on Assange.

Sonny

Submitted on 2011/11/04 at 4:04 AM | In reply to Novalis Lore.

Assange has still one appeal left in England if he takes it.

Here is a link from the Huffington Post with
the peoples’ comments saying that Assange has won!

You cannot go up against the powers that be – AND SHOWER THE WORLD WITH TRUTH THAT THE POWERS DO NOT WANT UNCOVERED – without infuriating them – and being punished for it – any way that they can. The weak spot or Achilles Heel.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/wikileaks-julian-assange-extradition_n_1070959.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=%23longorsiha+%23world+%23news+%23wikileaks+%23crisiwatch

And even if Assange has to go to Sweden – he is not coming to US JUST yet.

Here is Glen Beck video on Assange and his good explanation of the sexual assaults in Sweden – 9 minutes. Glen exposes the BS.

Novalis Lore

Submitted on 2011/11/04 at 4:34 PM | In reply to Sonny.

I’ve seen & read everything there is under the sun, um, in cyberspace, re the Assange/WL case since nearly two years now & wrote about it ever since the Polanski case was wrapped up last year July when the Assange case blew up first a month later.
Though Beck gets it right in a funny way in most part, & unfortunately he’s Fox so many won’t believe him anyway, it’s far more complicated than that (& there is nothing like ‘sex by surprise’ btw. – Assange was never rich either, & never agreed on the condom breaking, which btw. has NO DNA traces, i.e., is falsified ‘evidence’). There are plenty more players in the nasty game, & the British courts certainly don’t help.
I posted that video several times now on [my] FB. HuffPo btw, has less & less professional articles on Assange, & the comments there now are as vile as most were in the Polanski case, though the vast majority in general DO know this IS all BS.

Vahan

Submitted on 2011/11/30 at 4:42 AM

Novalis, I haven’t posted here in a long time (I’ve laid low since the decision was made not to extradite Polanski).

Anyways, I’m sure you’re aware of the news that a new Polanski documentary is going to premiere here in the U.S. (it’s already had its premiere in Switzerland). It’s called “She’s a Double Victim – My Victim and a Victim of the Press”.

I don’t know what to make of this. The way I see it, it’s either his slowly admitting to something that he had been saying to the contrary for a long time to the point where he’s ready to go back to L.A. to turn himself in, or it’s yet again the media trying to make him look like a cad, or his memory is starting to fail him. I also noticed some people, especially on IMDB, crying “He finally admitted he’s a rapist! So much for the people saying he’s innocent!”.

Anyways, what are your thoughts? Be honest.

Novalis Lore

Submitted on 2011/11/30 at 8:10 AM | In reply to Vahan.

Hi, Vahan -

The title is utterly misleading & is not the original. The documentary is in fact his very own chronicling of his house arrest. He basically filmed his time during his enforced stay at his Chalet while finishing his GhostWriter. His ‘apology’ is a brief mentioning that Geimer was a victim of the press & himself ‘in effect’, since the law saw it/her like that purely for her age, & because the press behaved like vultures. He’s not going to say he raped her after all. He called her a ‘victim’ before, though not ‘his victim’ (simply because the court documents named her this way), in his public address that he had done his time already & that Cooley was trying to ride the case in order to become AG. It’s only a short ‘public acknowledgement’ of the actions he had pleaded to & that he’s sorry about his thoughtless actions, though he said that often enough already, & won’t admit to anything else suddenly he hadn’t before. The documentary isn’t about her at all – he just touches on the events & violent press ‘victimisation’ of both since they were the reason for his imprisonment & house arrest. Not a chance he’s going back to LA, & LA won’t ever close or drop the case before he’s gone for good.

Forget IMDB, it’s all wishful thinking on their part. Polanski might be old, but he’s most certainly not senile or dumb enough to suddenly confess to something he didn’t do just to appease his dumb haters (or Cooley & Co). He lived with this since over three decades, there’s no point in changing that now – that would be most dishonest & a slap in the face of all his faithful supporters. We know fair well what happened, & he won’t betray our faith in his proven innocence. He did what he pleaded to – nothing else, & Geimer never said either that he actually raped her. On the contrary. Only the vicious press & self-interested parties did – hence their repeated victimisation, twice over.

So, there’s nothing to worry about – unless of course the docu is heavily re-edited/doctored to make him look/sound guilty – but I doubt that. He’s paid enough for t/his transgression, literally, & it’s time to end this craven travesty.

 

 

11
Jul
10

ROMAN POLANSKI – THE ART OF FALSE RAPE ACCUSATIONS

After having compiled my extensive Op End blogs about Roman Polanski, or more precisely the old sex case that was revived through his rearrest last year, the fact that many other cases like this were brought to my attention, I therefore have surfed the www for false rape accusation cases, and came across myriads of widely media covered and many more unknown cases mainly from the US that simply defy humanity, since they are far more common than suspected and have long outnumbered actual rape cases, or even murder cases, while the consequences of such a crime are far more devastating and far-reaching than people realise.

The article might be rather long and meandering at times, could be amended at any time, touch on other things related, I borrowed from several sources including my own blogs to highlight this growing epidemic, cited some of the comments I received on my Polanski blogs, and hereby accredit their own good efforts when not my own words, in an attempt to disseminate their contributions even further. But, it will be analysed within the context of the Polanski case where pertinent, who was the victim of just such a woman, or even two, one teenager many years ago and an ‘actress’ only very recently. If you don’t agree on that fact, or don’t have any insight into the old case to realise that, don’t even bother to read on. Or better still, study my very extensive in-depth analysis of the Seventies case here, and the new allegations here, to know better. All comments will be monitored.

<>

As declared, this is about the other side of the coin of ‘rape’, that of the ‘false rape accuser’, which sends countless innocent men into the legalised hell of terrible sexual assault, enduring much worse and most of all systematic abuse many times over, to in fact become real rape victims in turn.

To go to the very core, by branding a rape accuser a ‘victim’ outright, the motion impliedly asserts that a ‘rape accusation’ is ‘true’, based solely on yet utterly unchallenged allegations before any scrap of evidence is even admitted at a trial, much less an adjudication of ‘guilt’ is handed down, and any grand jury testimony as they only have them in the States is solely meant for indictment purposes and not ‘fact’. Such description of ‘victim’ is grossly unfair to the presumptively innocent who are accused of such crimes, since, by necessity, they first ‘must’ be guilty of rape if their accusers are, in fact, ‘victims’. Such logic seems to evade the feminist brain however.

Or, as in Polanski’s case, the girl was underage, and because he was the ‘in/famous’ director and so much older making her automatically a ‘victim’, rather than ‘minor participant’. When he addressed the public in May this year to defend himself for once, he unwisely used the word ‘victim’ instead of naming the woman concerned, Samantha Geimer, as so to perpetuate her undeserved status as ‘victim’, which ‘technically’ might be correct since she was a minor, but now people believe even more she really was, or still is the ‘Polanski victim’ that in fact never was the way they believe. But that’s not even the issue, since many slept with underage teens and will do so in the future, and yet NO one of his status was ever held as unendingly responsible in the same manner as Polanski. Simply for who he was, or is. Oh yes, and because he’s a man.

The ‘Geimer scenario’ is a classic example of how a woman (or mother) shifts all responsibility onto the man alone who had sex with her daughter, simply blamed him for everything. I.e., the booze and the drugs the daughter took herself without any coercion on his part and was in fact used to from her own home environment, and the girl could have refused but obviously didn’t. For the mother to never look at herself first, her answerability as parent, and then her daughter for her very own accountability no matter her age, letting the girl engage with him on her own in order to seek fame through his helping to further the daughter’s career, ending in sex one day, then, make her lie about the most crucial points to nullify her own actions throughout entirely, is simply put criminal. Though luckily these points could be discredited outright by medical evidence, like the cunnilingus and sodomy for not the slightest signs of any force or saliva/semen/injuries, (or witnesses not corroborating her claims either), the girl most probably made up most of it herself as teens do and mom fell for it, in order to avoid ‘punishment’.

That, according to Geimer’s own words, and that her mother otherwise might not have let her go with him for more topless photos, i.e., made her the ‘victim’ outright and fully, forced her to lie to both her mother and Polanski, rather than ask her first if she’d mind topless, though that was in point of fact obvious especially in view of this sort of erotic publication generally depicting also underaged nudity, and because she did everything on her own free will. But, as usual the state aided her ‘helpless female victim status’ par excellence, all to avoid liability, while, if she’d killed someone, would be held fully (and rightfully) to account no matter her age. But not for something as harmless as ‘sex’. Therefore, this description of ‘victim’ also trivialises genuine rape by including among its ‘victims’ those women who are false accusers, or minors. See Geimer, a sexually experienced teenager who was exposed to sex from very early on by her own admission, hard and soft drugs and alcohol from a very young age onwards the attorneys fully realised. Or, see self-confessed ex-teenage prostitute and promiscuous drug addict Charlotte Lewis, his recent, even lesser credible ‘accuser’ who had said the exact opposite some years back and had an affair AFTER  the ‘abuse’ lies.

Every step of the way Geimer’s mother tried to deflect from her own responsibilities once the law took on a life of its own and a turn to the worst she had not anticipated, and what’s more, she allowed her daughter, or even coached her to lie in a court of law under oath, in order to make themselves look better, the ‘victim/s’, when it was clear they had targeted him to further her professionally, wanted him to do what he did, i.e., take the photos for a man’s magazine to further her ‘career’, and that of the mother through her, and then cried rape. Yet, neither of Geimer’s or Lewis parents, or rather criminally negligent mothers, were ever held accountable for their parental failures even the attorneys recognised in Polanski’s case, but did nothing, or that they had lied, and the resulting ‘immoral’ behaviour of their daughters they had allowed to form, even furthered. Polanski alone had to pay for it, simply for being the man, older, and/or ‘famous’, deflecting from the fact that in the case of Geimer, her mother took the easy way out by laying blame on him entirely rather than let her daughter admit to the sex and the rest and that had been it, case dismissed. Or rather should never have called the cops as Geimer wanted, but mom didn’t listen to her daughter when it mattered.

Once Geimer was away from her mother, she was much more talkative and relaxed, by Polanski’s own admission, clearly a sigh of her pressure on Geimer. Yet, had Geimer stood up to her, refused to lie, it had ended there. But, all she did was ‘act’, just like her bit-part actress mother seeking fame through him, put on a great show for the impressionable grand jury made of ordinary citizens, who were long biased against Polanski through the media furore. While in Lewis’ case her single mother didn’t prevent her daughter from prostituting herself, effectively paving the way for her daughter to end up a rebellious teenager by her own admission, it resulted in ultimately ‘blaming’ an old man many years later of ‘abuse’ that clearly never happened either. No, it’s called self-abuse, and taking responsibility for your own actions – no matter your age and/or gender. All through history we have encountered such cases, and only the man was punished. This case only highlights such tragedies, and that the contemptuous LA courts are a putrid haven of cutthroats who mis/use any il/legal means to destroy innocent people – trying to bring an old man down who had exposed their corrupt dealings, covering up their mounting misconducts by giving us some drug addled s/ex-‘actress’ to cry ‘abuse’ in the limelight of the media.

Society at large only grants anonymity for women who accuse men of rape because they consider such anonymity is thought to serve useful purposes, just as anonymity for men would serve just as important purposes, and so far only the UK seems to be implementing such vital new reformation after too many false rape accusations, with some women even crying rape out of boredom by now. Men accusing women of sexual abuse or other men of rape however see no such privilege levied onto them. Malicious accusers should serve the same sentence they attempt/ed to inflict on their victims, should repay the cost of any investigations to the accused and police/taxpayer, and then placed on the sex offenders register to ensure the safety of possible future victims, and/or return all monies they unlawfully obtained through later civil lawsuits. As it happened in Polanski’s case. It is ridiculous to claim on the one hand that anonymity for the accused is a ‘problem’ because that leads to a ‘presumption of innocence’, which it in fact SHOULD until he’s ‘proven guilty’, but on the other hand continue supporting anonymity for the accuser only, who may be nothing more than a liar as seen so often.

Even though women constitute only 10% of the US prison population. NONE of the 90.000 women who are KNOWN by authorities to file false charges each year are prosecuted, while many of these men they had accused in fact ended up in hell and no one released them to give a more realistic number of actual criminals being locked up. ‘Rapes’ are reported in the US at an astronomical rate thousand times higher than in Japan, with false allegations by women making American men now one quarter of al men in the world behind bars. Within the last few years the figure shot up by 330%, not because they have more rapists, no, but countries with ‘victim compensation programs’ have rape allegation rates up to twenty-four times higher than countries without them, i.e., ‘gold diggers’ and said false accusers. One third of men accused, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for ‘rape’ have already been exonerated by DNA evidence after years of unjust punishment. Every year we have several cases of cleared men, but the vile accusers got away with it.

Problem is, many US states in fact do not even accept ‘new DNA evidence’, to clear someone’s name, i.e., simply refuse/d to releases the falsely accused/convicted for whatever insane reasons, let alone pursue or prosecute the lying accuser/s. What’s more, many DNA chemists had lied in court that an accused matched the results, before they were in fact found innocent, or were excluded as suspects, by someone else after further investigations and years in prison, where they suffered longterm abuse and unjust hardship. Also, rape accusers in contrast are afforded all manners of ‘counselling’ and assistance funded by tax and tuition dollars besides, while no similar assistance is afforded to victims of other, much more violent and damaging crimes, least of all real rape survivors. Or maybe even not survivor, after they had been raped multiple times or were even killed, that to say in prison, i.e., men.

It’s all very fine to start having sex and then change your mind for whatever reason, but then just abort it and do NOT resort to crying rape afterwards like a bad-tempered little girl, or because you didn’t reach orgasm. Blame the man for being a lousy lover, or say what you want to enjoy it, but don’t cry rape. Making false allegations of rape and/or sexual abuse is not ‘sexual conduct’, it’s ‘l-y-i-n-g’ before the law, end of. ‘Rape Shield Laws’ introduced in 1974 simply exclude/d vital evidence of the victim’s past sexual conduct to actually make a more informed defence, so, how could that shield possibly extend to evidence that the accuser has previously made false police reports? What has ‘lying’ to do with her sexual history? Would this evidence have been excluded if she had made false allegations that someone beat her up, mugged her, stole her car, etc.? Of course not.

So, why does the content of a police report bring in an act that has nothing to do with her sexual conduct, namely, the act of ‘l-y-i-n-g’ to the law enforcement, under the protection of these Rape Shield Laws? Where the logic is eludes me entirely. But the again, that’s idiot feminist logic. Not women’s or men’s common sense. They argue that nothing from a woman’s history in any form sex related may be allowed into admission, anything that might point to her being a sexual predator, drug and alcohol abuser, a cry rape accuser, though anything to that affect from the man’s side is free to be used against him on top, to make HIM the sexual predator, and SOLELY responsible partner. In Polanski’s case that might have been devastating, with his plenty sexual encounters, but rare drug and alcohol use, which on the other hand in fact could just as well speak for him, since the more women he had, the lower the chance that he needs to rape anyone. So that kind of double talk ‘logic’ can backfire massively.

If a woman has no visible physical injuries, and there ARE if forcible rape/sodomy occurred, or even only ‘believes’ she has been ‘raped’, this in itself is even more farfetched since I would ‘know’, feel, see I was raped. It deeply incenses me is someone seriously states she ‘believed’ someone had ‘raped’ her – when she’s still fully dressed with not a hair out of place!? If someone was unconscious and/or drugged and clearly suffered physical abuse, there’s no mistaking ‘rape’ HAS occurred, (though mercifully the victim was unaware of it) unless she of course applied this new ‘feminist logic’, and then the most she can claim is ‘imaginable tort’, and declare unverifiable ‘psychological damage’ to balm her spoilt female attitude, and most of the time she can get on with her life since there was clearly no harm done, except to the accused of course. So, where is the logic that any woman who was actually raped, wouldn’t go to the authorities when her rape is clearly evident, as in physical injuries, like bruises and tearing or the slightest genital trauma, soreness and/or dried blood, as ALWAYS seen in forcible rape even if the victim was out of it, or, ‘just let it happen’, as Geimer once stupidly claimed? And most of all, to put away her attacker?

No one, who gets forced into sexual intercourse even by cooperating or passive enduring to lessen the trauma, has no physical signs of forcible penetration. The crucial difference between a real rape victim and a false accuser is that the ones who really are violated don’t wait until the next morning to find sympathy, unless severely injured and then need medical attention anyhow. Either they go into a foetal position because of a fragile psyche that their parents and ‘authority figures’ cultivated, or they pick up and move on with their spines straight, or they go directly to a hospital or police station with the evidence. Sometimes they fight back against their attackers and sometimes they don’t, but many times an active fight actually saved the attacked, and the real victims never go looking for someone to validate their ‘egos’. Unlike Lewis. Someone once observed that, American culture is saturated with fantasies of men as the conquering sexual hero and sexual aggressor, while women’s attractiveness to men is predicated on showing vulnerability and playing the victim. No wonder they keep insisting to be rendered ‘victims’, in order to be seen as desirable, while condemning the ‘hero’ for in fact wanting to ravish her.

So let’s not even go deeper into ‘rape fantasies’ feminists would never admit exist, since this theme is in fact deeply ingrained and intensely appealing to women in American society because it absolves the woman of responsibility for being, or wanting to be, sexual. I.e., therefore become ‘victims’ by ‘virtue’ of desires/repression/obsession to engage in sex, rather than just ‘have sex’ and not be messed up in the head and therefore cannot enjoy sex guiltlessly on a physical level. Being dominated and playing the ‘innocent victim’ has a certain sexual dynamic these women need to actually become aroused, and is of course much easier than ‘work’ on the sex. Rape fantasies are the struggle to deal with the forbidden pleasure of sexuality, which can lead to altering one’s self-perceptions to permit the pleasurable experience. One such alteration of perception occurs in the woman who considers all men to be rapists, in order to fulfil her own worst expectation by demanding that the man force his attention upon her. In some instances she may then self-righteously scream ‘rape’. Some women don’t spend the day thinking about their own [sexual] behaviour, but instead find and analyse it in the ‘evidence’ of ‘rape culture’ they invented themselves that shows up in ads, TV, films, social interactions, as the best excuse, i.e., ‘cause’, rather than take responsibility for their own desires. Of course, they would condemn men fantasising about ravishing a woman, but wouldn’t bat a lash if a woman would love to ravish a man, or a wo/man another wo/man.

Astonishing assertions like, ‘rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear’, is more than misandruous bullshit, or else we’d in fact be unable to work alongside men, have families, male friends, go shopping, on holiday, do anything at all involving ‘men’, and men wouldn’t be able to work and live alongside women in the first place, too occupied on scheming against them. This kind of fascist talk is vicious rape baiting and mass hysteria instigated and maintained by these utterly deluded feminists. It is correct that actual rape is a traumatising crime, but so is having being stabbed for a few $, and false accusations of rape are every bit as horrible for the actual victim, i.e., the man. They are a form of psychological rape that can emotionally, socially, and economically destroy a person or even family even if there is no conviction, especially for those of less fame and fortune than Polanski, though I highly doubt he never suffered his own stigma attached to him for life as a falsely accused rapist. Let alone ‘paedophile’ he’s labelled with on top in their glorious stupidity.

To think physical injury suffered once through actual rape, is greater than the mental/economical/social suffering sustained for life by a falsely accused, let alone longterm abuse suffered, is more than selfish, arrogant and insulting to the accused and genuine victims, especially if the man ends up in prison to get violated there on a daily base without escape for years, or even if he luckily will never see the inside of prison, those who engaged in lying about rape should be punished to the full extend of the law. But of course, there is no ‘law’ for such insidious liars. I know that in the UK, there are other charges that can be levelled against the false accuser, and, under the EU Human Rights Charter there are other avenues that can be legally used as well to find compensation. The US however, what a surprise, doesn’t afford any of those options, hence, more accused and brutal prison terms are handed down mercilessly none of these men deserve/d. That radical feminists wouldn’t think so is clear.

In the current due process climate, it is arrest first, then investigation, and then trial to establish the facts, therefore even innocent citizens have to spend time in jail, with not the slightest proof yet aside from the accusation of possibly even a mentally unbalanced woman, all before a proper investigation even starts. Due to the vast inroads that feminism has made into the current judicial systems US and otherwise, false accusations are a weapon used against men, and they are usually used to cover up the bad behaviours or irresponsible decisions of some women. Under our current legal system, the woman is allowed to change her mind the next day, the next week, the next year, or even decade, about what she previously consented to, and then cry rape. And you WILL be arrested, for as long as she is a convincing enough actress. See Geimer. Some people/attorneys defending false accusers with the, ‘her emotionally unstable’ (or ‘young’) client was ‘genuinely sorry’ for what they had put men through, is nothing but an insult ignoring the impact such lies can have on others, on the accuser’s and attorney’s part after the fact, her own family, many more involved, quite clearly giving not the slightest thought about the grave impact of such condemnable actions on the wrongly accused himself most of all. See Polanski.

Fact is, prosecutors systematically refuse to prosecute false rape accusers/perpetrators, and even victims’ advocates repudiate seeing falsely accused men as victims, and instead work to minimise and conceal the problem they create/d by creating more and more male victims, which all sooner or later will backfire monstrously. It has already, and if the law doesn’t punish these women soon, others will in a tit-for-tat vendetta targeting innocent women. It’s like a cancer they allow/ed to grow, and instead of preventing it to cause serious harm and root it out, they rather cultivate it to the bitter end. If a woman doesn’t get the sentimental attentions she feels she has coming to her immediately after having bestowed her ‘sexual favours’, or even decades later suddenly which truly boggles the mind, she cares about nothing except herself by getting deluded revenge on the man she sees as having scorned or ‘used’ her sexuality, and cares nothing for rightness, justice, fairness, law, harming the innocent, the functioning of society, family, or other such notions which may come naturally to most people.

Women, those who already in general care relatively little for any of that in the abstract, or selfish, pampered, arrogant little airheads, care strictly nothing for any of it when they perceive themselves as having been ‘wronged’ rather than get a life, grow up, but will exact what horrific revenge they can, and the more horrific the better. See Lewis, clearly a petty, self-centred, self-obsessed and cold-hearted liar wallowing in her self-pitying narcissism out for an old man’s blood. And what’s more, any prepubescent and/or adolescent can accuse an adult of ‘rape’ too, making him, or even her, a paedophile in a cruel instant without the slightest chances of proving otherwise. NONE. Next scenario, older man and pretty nubile minor have sex, parents find out. Guess what? ‘Statutory rape’, possible life sentence for the adult, while sweet little girl walks free to secretly sleep with the next idiot because mommy and/or daddy/boyfriend don’t like the fact that daughter was sexually active, and even told a grand jury about it. See Geimer.

And no, it’s not victim ‘blaming’, to ask for anything related as to the accuser’s ‘history’, sexual or otherwise, it’s alleged victim ‘questioning’, it’s truth finding, to see if the accuser spoke true when claiming only one or two sexual encounters before, e.g., since that would be in fact ‘l-y-i-n-g’ in a court of law, or perjury no one seems to think is a crime in that case. And best of all, since this belongs into the category of ‘sexual history’, if any accuser had HIV or any other VD, and the accused will be infected, he will never know until it’s literally too late. And, would you say that any genuine rape victim would not submit to a psych or polygraph test? I’d say that’s a BIG NO, since they would be found NOT to lie, while a false rape accuser would most certainly NOT submit to it. (Or take it thinking they can beat it and then be found out.) See Geimer, who was ‘spared’ such a vital ‘psyche evaluation’, since the attorneys knew too well she had put on a grand ‘victim’ show. Had the old judge played by the rules that had been it.

There was a case some years back in the US where a parole board seriously said to some inmate, he should serve four more years in prison for his so-called crime of having sex with a ‘no crier’, and then be released, stating for the record that: The ‘victim’ was not harmed in any way. No threats were made at the ‘victim’. The ‘crime’ contained no violence. And, best of all, the head of the parole board said that the ‘victim’ aided in the ‘crime’. Exactly as it was in Polanski’s case. So, there was NO ‘violence’, NO ‘threat’ of violence, NO ‘crime’ was committed basically, and why exactly was this man sent to and then kept in prison for even longer? And why call her ‘victim’, if she even abetted in the ‘crime’ that obviously never occurred? By all logic she’s a criminal too in my view, not any ‘victim’. Or better still, neither of them is, but only the man is inside! But no, let’s redefine what a ‘crime’ is, or a ‘victim’, and insult any real rape victim while real rapists run around freely, and guess what? Sooner or later no one will care about any ‘rape claims’ anymore with this kind of absurd logic.

And, why is ‘rape’ seen as the ‘worst of all crimes’, even if it was not at all forcible? While any intelligent mind would consider long-term sexual abuse, horrible torture, capital murder, war crimes or genocide far worse crimes? Now, if a woman were tied up and any part of her body slowly be pounded into mush with a hammer, piece by piece, as long as it takes to severely injure but not kill her, hours and hours or even days of gruesome torture, maybe leave her paralysed, or even brain-damaged, or some caustic liquid were forced down her throat to cause severe internal injuries, both causing terrible suffering, she would be awarded NO special ‘shield laws’ at a trial, NO special services, NO violent assault crimes organisations for victims of real physical attacks. But, if a man sticks his oh so offensive penis into a women’s oh so sacred vagina (especially designed for that mind you) ‘against her will’ and it lasts for only a few minutes, she is protected by Rape Shield Laws and awarded all kinds of protections and/or ‘compensations’. That’s nothing but the perverted feminists’ idea of ‘justice’, and gender based hypocrisy.

So, why does ‘consent’ to have sex, turn a natural act a normal woman would normally perform, into this complicated, potentially life-scarring event men have to negotiate in mathematical details before even undressing, calculate every possible scenario and ‘position’ not to be called a rapist afterwards, when only true rape or assault victims suffered any actual harm? And, while it’s a terrible tragedy when a woman is forcibly raped and her rapist is set free, most likely because the authorities have to deal with all these false claims, how often do feminists speak out for the men whose lives are shattered when they are unjustly accused of rape? Or when a man was raped? They NEVER do! No, feminists look gleefully the other way when men are ripped to pieces by sickening women who make false rape accusations and are violated by other men in their name.

And think of this, if you want to throw someone in prison for some pathetic, ‘perceived grievance’ that is not actionable under law, then you better be prepared to pay the piper when the man in question gets out, (if still in one coherent or cohesive piece) because his own sense of ‘revenge’ might visit that ultimate umbrage upon their accuser in full measure, even if it means that he’ll no doubt has to go back, and that cycle of violence and abuse will continue to the very bitter end. But I guess, feminists will hope for the man to be a piece of gibbering vegetable if ever released and in no state to seek revenge anymore. No, he’ll probably kill himself first to end his misery. If a rape claim turns out to be false, all the police do is close it as ‘unfounded allegations’, NOT ‘false accusations’ that should be prosecuted. Especially if an actual man is at the receiving end who was accused and most likely ended up in jail. Many of these false claims are in fact not even cases where the woman accused her partner/friend etc., but some fictitious stranger who attacked them, and oddly, most of these accused (in the US) are black or Hispanic guys – which sounds more like racism, than rape. False reports cause unnecessary fear in the community for one, and reports take personnel away from other vital calls for police support, increasing response time for real victims.

Of course, the next thing that happens after another false report is dismissed, some feminist advocate comes along and says, just because a report is considered false doesn’t mean something didn’t happen or that someone doesn’t need help. Something traumatic has happened to them to make them come forward and make allegations of sexual assault, and they are usually in some sort of emotional trouble. Yeah, they’re pathological liars if there’s not the slightest sign of ‘rape’, end of. See Lewis. If a false accuser however might end up in jail, all they get is a few months. But it’s not only the feminists’ fault they get away with it; it’s the prosecutors who routinely don’t ‘prosecute’ anyone who committed perjury – if they’re ‘women’. See Judge Rittenband, who didn’t care shit about Geimer’s and her mother’s lies, all three in fact knowingly perverting the course of justice, and her behaviour with her mother’s very own boyfriend outside the prosecutor’s office. I.e., he had his leg between hers embracing with erotic connotations both locked in a steamy, passionate embrace; not the avuncular hug of a grown man comforting a young girl, but an unmistakably erotic clinch. Her thigh was up against his crotch. That, coming from Polanski’s own former prosecutor, mind you. So much for an ‘innocent’ thirteen year old just having been ‘raped’.

Funny thing is, someone like Al Gore, who was accused of sexual assault in 2006, (and remember Clinton and his extramarital fling?) never made the headlines, (and is probably just another cry rape case seeking attention, since there’s no such thing as only ‘one’ assault or rape committed by a ‘rapist’) while Polanski is smeared all over the media over some three decades old sexual encounter with a teenager. And speaking of teenagers, how about adulterer Arnie, yeah, the ‘I’ll be back’ ex-Terminator dude who became Governor of California (where DA Cooley & Co sit who want Polanski’s in shackles before the court and his head on a judicial platter) – he had a longer affair with a minor in the Seventies, i.e., committed serial ‘statuary rape’, like Polanski only once around the same time, and, he apparently ‘sexually assaulted’ several women in his ‘crude approach’ to the female gender. But I guess, in both cases the feminist armchair moralists had nothing to say about their oh so ‘heinous crimes’, and their PR machine obviously did a better job to hide the fact of Arnie’s ‘youthful transgression’, since RP (‘Roman Polanski’) never had any PR. No, he had, no, has to endure a public relation with vilification till his dying day.

And another thing that’s been around for some while now, is the nasty ‘female condom’ – no, not the one that prevents pregnancies, but one with ‘bite. It’s a device like a femdom, but it has jagged rows of teeth-like hooks lined inside that attach on a man’s penis during penetration. Once it lodges, only a doctor can remove it. A woman might insert this atrocity in her vagina before going on a blind date, but then proceed to send off signals indicating her willingness to engage in intercourse. Perhaps she’s had a few drinks and has even forgotten she’s wearing the appalling device. If her unwitting date proceeds, he will be subjected to the surprise of his life when this 13th Century torture device clamps down on his penis. That is not rape, it’s the innocent man who’s just been brutally assaulted. Since hardly anyone in fact bought the thing, and evidently isn’t going to help stop rape, and, would only make matters worse for women, could actually chomp down on innocent penises, why not empower and teach women things that will actually help them avoid dangerous situations instead? For many radical feminists, that’s ‘victim blaming’. No, I call it taking responsibility.

Some women use sex as means of power and for blackmail, as in, I sleep with you to gain something, and if not, I’m sulking because you didn’t do what I demanded and accuse you of rape. Try to get out of that one. Equally, they use sex against men to maintain their handy victimhood as a strategy and tactic to achieve what they want, regardless of the outcome. Or, they become pregnant to bind the man to them, by emotionally tying him to a child. These women are emotionally immature, bullies and drama queens who turn the most minor of life experiences into a big deal but care little about others’ struggles, travails, and of course conversely joys. They use guilt and shame to manipulate, oftentimes using this guilt to force the person into unsavoury acts out of ‘love’. She makes you feel emotionally drained after spending any amount of time with her and is easily provoked and malicious. She may tell stories about having been raped, sexually abused, or was a victim of domestic violence in an attempt to gain sympathy. Or limelight. See Lewis.

Such women are controlling, but become outraged if you ‘check up’ on them or ask too many questions about them, and double-faced hypocrites. They use mimicry to cleverly masquerade as a human with a conscience and empathy, play their games, live in a fantasy world and cannot tell truth from fiction, are exploitative, always asking for favours but do nothing in return. They possess a tremendous amount of entitlement, i.e., are selfish and conceited, and treat others as if they are lesser than her, are envious of others and vindictive towards those who better their lot in life or are better looking, more talented, more successful than her. See ugly liar Lewis, and Polanski, her victim, and his beautiful wife and children she’s envious of. One could say, it’s the typical narcissistic, pampered little airhead who has no idea about reality, and granting carte blanch to such females to perform in any way possible without responsibility or accountability, we’ll end up with this type of self-indulgent, thoughtless, petulant and criminal behaviour.

Same goes for this ‘rape culture’ these feminist advocates of victimhood invented, indeed cultivated, just so to make us believe rape is rampant. But, contrary to popular feminist belief it is wrong to make up unjust and biased laws to support a woman’s ‘hurt feelings’ and get back at those ‘evil men’ and other women. And even if some men think rape is a lot worse than it really is, it’s by putting themselves into the woman’s shoes. But when they do so, they really, in effect, put their butts into the woman’s oh so ‘sacred vagina’ as the only place to stick things in, which makes it seem worse than it is, since it’s worse to most to have anal intercourse, and butts generally aren’t meant for penis insertion but to defecate. But vaginas are, and for nothing else in fact. That’s their sole purpose, other than bleed or give birth. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the time, women quite like it when penises go in there, or ‘toys’, so why use it against men, just because some use their penises against women.

What’s more, there are other extremely damaging myths alive in media and other public representations of ‘rape’, or even ‘sex’, or in fact in peoples’ own ill-informed and/or ignorant minds not even knowing the simplest dynamics of sexual intercourse, that rape [or sex] is easy to perform, and there is some physiological pleasure or gratification involved for the rapist, since then it would be about ‘sex’, not ‘power’, when it’s not. Both anecdotal and scientific evidence shows that a significant proportion of rapists have difficulty getting an erection, maintaining it, achieving penetration or experiencing ejaculation, or could in fact enter their victim/s, (hence, some resorting to ‘tools’.) Research undertaken in the US in the 1980s showed that over 10% of those serving prison sentences for ‘rape’ were even permanently impotent, i.e., weren’t in fact ‘real rapists’, since no erection equals no hardness = no penetration. Unless the victim is unconscious, sedated, restrained, scared stiff, or ‘lets it happen’, it’s simply impossible, and most certainly NO rape/sodomy occurred if there were NO physical signs of genital and/or other injuries. So in Geimer’s case, there’s NO chance Polanski raped let alone sodomised her even twice at not the slightest bruises or tearing anywhere. Any doctor would shake his head, and the physician who had examined her, did just that calling her bluff; hence no trial and all other counts were dropped.

In short, for men, ‘rape’ cannot be the ‘illicit pleasure’, the stolen ‘innocence’ that we see presented again and again in popular, highly uninformed culture. Physiologically, this is an act that is usually at best extremely uncomfortable, at worst, painful and difficult for the perpetrator, since the penis can be bent, the foreskin tightened severely, and the dry vagina or tight rectum cause more friction. Try it once, and you’ll see it’s impossible without causing severe pain and damage, for both, requiring vital lube even in consensual sex. Why then the myth of ‘male gratification’ and how easy it is to get his tackle inside? The pain inflicted on the victim, might be just as great as the pain the perpetrator suffers, which is only eased when blood is drawn from severe force. Why then would anyone perform an act that causes them discomfort, even pain? The rapist may be aberrant, but ‘rape’, ‘elicited’ [or underaged] sex itself is a biologically normal act, (no matter what feminists say) which is made ‘criminal’ only by the victim’s lack of consent. Legal or otherwise. Meaning, it can be very painful or difficult to penetrate anyone who’s dry, closed up, frozen up, or conversely struggling, and in general rather hard to find the right orifice, especially in the dark – many times even in consensual intercourse.

And, how often does the man need the female to ‘guide’ the penis into herself? Or when the penis slips out again, and s/he needs to guide it back inside? Or you need more lube? Think of it. I blame all those misinforming cross-section diagrams of the female reproductive tract that hang on doctors’ walls and are found in biology books, which portray the vagina as an ‘empty space’, a ‘large cavity’ with a ‘big hole’, just because babies come out of it sometimes. There’s little or no recognition that the vagina in its normal, non-aroused state is a rather small aperture whose rippled walls lie adjacent to one another, very much like the anus/rectum, a tightly closed canal that is no deeper than ten centimetres on average, and it only widens when getting aroused to accommodate the penis. (Like the slow process required to dilate sufficiently for childbirth after many months.) That’s why it is so painful and injurious to force anything inside if the woman is not aroused and therefore lubricated enough. Many assume that male ‘sexual arousal’ is necessary for rape to take place, no, anything can trigger an ejection, and few consider the complex physiological mechanisms that make sexual intercourse possible for women (lubrication, engorgement, retraction of the cervix, etc.) in the first place.

I’m sure feminists love keeping these myths alive in order for people to believe the dumbest ‘rape’ story, (see Geimer’s rape and ‘dry sodomy’ nonsense) or for men to believe their sacred temple is a huge hollow and easy to invade, who claim that sex and gender is a ‘social construct’ and doesn’t exist naturally, i.e., the gender itself, and their differences. Or of course ‘sex’, i.e., the vagina and penis that in fact fits just nicely into it. I always thought female + male = gender = sex. (Or any other ‘gender’ combination.) Guess not. In that sense then, there could be no such thing as ‘sex’, or this ‘rape culture’ to anyone who believes natural sex or gender difference do not exist – unless they include all ‘rape’ in that ‘culture’, i.e., that of men too. But then feminists don’t even acknowledge male rape exists either. These ‘people’ are sexist bigots and plain old-fashioned hypocrites, if we leave out the ‘gender’ term. Feminists hate the idea that others could enjoy themselves and have a normal sex life, even a kinky one, regardless of age or ‘gender’, while they go out there thriving on hatred, condemnation and screaming their way to their self-imposed, delusional victimhood in the land of misantopia. A fictional land based on lies, distortions and mistrust, and don’t forget the abuse of both sexes, or ‘genders’.

Arguments by ultra feminists against anonymity to the rape accused are a manifestation of their legalised hatred for men, saying, ‘it would hamper police investigations’, or prevent others from coming forward, when exactly that would encourage real victims to report their attackers, since no one would know who they are, and none of their friends would put one and one together to realise who the accuser could be and maybe threaten the accuser, or in fact, take the vigilante law into their own hands and attack the accused, as it happened many times, leaving an innocent man severely injured or even brutally killed. It only happened recently again in the States, where a vile woman accused her ex of rape, and after she had lured him into her clutches, goaded a teenager and young man into torturing him, leaving him near dead, repeatedly beaten and violently sodomised over twenty-four hours with a caustic agent laced broomstick, while she looked on in perverse pleasure. That’s in no way exaggerated, but shocking fact. Google ‘Renada Williams’ and there she is – one of many.

Such women are pure evil beyond evil, while the vile men who fell for her lies are nothing but perverted extension of her female depravity, made to commit worse atrocities against their own all in the name of misled ‘chivalry’, or of course, ‘rape’. Yet, the woman and teen were only charged with aggravated assault and sexual assault, while the other man escaped. Not even attempted murder, since, had they not been interrupted and the severely injured man could be freed, they had surely killed him in cruel sadism. The culprits in this case are nothing more than vigilante scum whipped into frenzy that cut into the action of a corrupted system that routinely does the same under a thin façade of legal decorum that is every bit as manufactured as this woman’s repulsive lie, and we learn absolutely nothing from it if we don’t recognise that what happened here, is not so different than what the law sanctions and justifies routinely in the name of justice, since it will be happening to many more men.

One way or the other, unless clear signs of physical injury and/or mental distress are evident, men have to learn to stop reflexively jumping to women’s aid in these situations to cause only more damage to innocent men. Or in fact, end sleeping around with every available slut offering herself. When it comes to rape, even the substantial number of them that are of the concocted variety, we pay officials to react with the same destructive mindlessness as those two repulsive automatons acting on behalf of this sick/ening woman. Rape vigilantism and genuine rape justice have simply become two different railroads, and the fact that blind/ed vigilantes actually believe they are going after guilty people without the slightest proof. False rape accusations are one of the worst problems faced by the western world today, because they are allowed to artificially create and maintain mass hysteria and anti-male biased ‘laws’, and while every country has a legal system which states that a person is ‘innocent until proven guilty’, therefore the accused should have the same right to the same privacy as the presumed ‘victim’.

Feminist activists have dominated the public discourse on rape for the past forty years, and more and more, ‘rape’, as now defined by (mostly US) ‘sex laws’ or in college handbooks, has become nothing more than a twisted game of vindictive ‘gotcha!’, with the intention of branding any male a rapist for doing what most people would think is not ‘rape’, according to polls, while in fact simply having ‘sex’. Common sense is sacrificed for robotic adherence to such highly damaging ‘rules’ forced on us, sending men into hell from which they cannot ever return. And another thing, why would anyone, who some decades back did not think she was ‘raped’, or ‘abused’ as in any scenario other than forcible intercourse obviously, today suddenly say so? Are these women so desperate to think they have to belong to the endless stream of real or imaginary ‘abused women’ suddenly, just because it’s ‘in’, or ‘feminine’ to be the weak female, rather than stand by their original convictions, accountability, strong womanhood, not pathetic ‘victimhood’? You only need to look at their actual life to know the answer, or why they suddenly want to blame others for their own failures. Or are liars at any rate. See Lewis.

A young man, who is engaging in consensual sex with an older woman, delays withdrawing for five to ten seconds (by her admission only), voila, he’s a rapist, convicted of a felony that will forever brand him as the most serious criminal worse than a murderer. That happened in the US (of course), and believe or not, some troll commented on that story with the following: ‘Personally I think that 5-10 seconds after she said “stop” would be a lifetime to the victim in that position, and certainly more than enough time to withdraw. (Sorry, what ‘victim’?) Also, I feel that your (the False Rape Society blogger’s) comparison is flawed: rape is rape, no matter if it’s a male or female victim, and the attacker in that position should be sentenced for violating the rights and dignity of the victim. (Clever to say, ‘no matter male or female victim’). Four years (the boy received) may have been excessive, (‘may’!? For not ‘withdrawing’ fast enough!? In the heat of passion perhaps?! What disproportionate lunacy to even think that is a crime and call the boy an ‘attacker’!) but this was probably bartered down from life etc, and perhaps the defendant’s lawyer was unable to find any way of reducing the sentence further for whatever reason. (What a blasé ‘analysis’! The courts should in fact never have allowed this lunacy of a case!) You could just blame the gender bias in favour of women in this case, rather than the prosecutor. Do something about it, don’t just sit on the internet and bitch about people who have been raped.’

Now, to dissect such imbecilic twaddle even further with others’ comments, in terms of the ‘harm’ to the individual, NOT ALL RAPE IS THE SAME. Get it? THAT’S the whole point! Only forcible intercourse is rape and SHE most certainly was NOT ‘raped’! And four years in prison for a crime you didn’t even commit (since she had in fact lied!) is far worse than a five to ten second bloody ‘delay’! These people will say or do anything for female victimhood status, and to even pander such outrageous bullshit is unbelievable! Tell you what, you pathetic little feminists you, let’s just have the laws reversed and see how YOU like going to prison for four years because you waited 5-10 seconds to get off a man in the heat of passion. Fair’s fair, right ladies? Oh, that’s right, no it isn’t. Because it isn’t about your imaginary ‘traumatic ordeals’ at all, is it? It’s about your in-built bigotry and hatred of men, your jealousy of men, and your never-ending need to blame someone-men-for YOUR bad decisions, ‘sex’, or simply out of spite. Some ‘writer’ commenting on the case declared that she doesn’t understand all the media attention for this ‘mundane perjury story’. ‘Mundane perjury story’!?!? The man’s life was destroyed no matter the case was turned over on appeal in fact, for some whining little female having lied to the cops and a court of law that cost him FOUR years in prison for literally fuck [all]!!

Wouldn’t it be nice if someone were to commit ‘mundane perjury’ against idiots like her, giving them a nice long four years to think about things while the outside world calls them all sorts of horrible names and laughs at the sexual abuse they undoubtedly will suffers in jail! To ‘people’ like that prison rape isn’t real rape at any rate, no, it’s the kind of rape that even feminists can celebrate and laugh about because it mainly affects men, liars like her and supporters thereof  have sent there in the first place! In another story, a couple engaged in sex after drinking: he, and he alone, is the rapist, because the one drink she had ‘interfered’ with her female ‘perceived ability’ to consent with 100% crystal clarity, and only the male is deemed to be responsible for any sexual acts, or rather ‘transgressions’. Meeting out excessive punishments for such a ridiculous ‘rape’ means that the innocent are often punished severely for crimes they didn’t even commit. Given its all too pervasive law and order attitudes, America has a long and shameful history of rape hysteria, predating the feminist revolution that has long turned it into an obsessed crusade to deem all men rapists and/or paedophiles. While they both exist, always bred by very often abusive or dominant women, most of those accused however were neither. See Polanski. Time has long proven, that real rape cases are NEVER, EVER just, ‘he said she said’ where the alleged rapist is the boyfriend, husband, acquaintance of the alleged ‘victim’. As seen in his case.

While feminists would argue that the majority of attackers are known to the victim, in a situation of ‘domestic violence’, however, usually fuelled by alcohol and/or drugs, based on many social, financial and/or emotional factors, it most times does not involve any sexual attacks at all, and many victims are in fact men. Ever more [created] rapists, and unfortunately, many falsely convicted of rape or such ‘violence’, are in prison in the US than anywhere else on Earth. In fact, many attackers ARE strangers, who might ‘know’ the victim or not, but the victim does not. I alone know of one female and one male victim whose attackers picked them off the streets at random, who did not ever know their prey. They both reported it after near fatal, prolonged assaults, but in either case the attacker was never found despite best efforts. In fact, unlike what feminists proclaim, [complete] stranger/‘acquaintance’ [forcible] rape, (which can include a [school]friend of a [school]friend of a [school]friend) is about half/half, not the majority being actually known to the victim. Also, the ‘stranger’ an assailant, the more brutal the crime/s. Conversely, ‘rape’ and/or sexual assault are more often perpetrated by family members like the mother, father, or their friends, and might not include physical violence.

I personally heard of only a few other cases and where the attacker was brought to justice, either known, a stranger, or mere casual acquaintance to the victims, but still, the feminists will pretend that there is a vast pool of unreported violence and/or rapes and/or perpetrated by their nearest and not so dearest, or of course were never reported, somehow justifying the actions of false rape accusers and ‘minimising the suffering’ of these poor victims who never were victimised in the first place. Do they really think, that having a man take ‘advantage’ of a woman while she’s tipsy, or took a little pill to make her horny, is worse than the possibility of life in prison, losing your home, your livelihood, or your projects due to mounting legal fees, or being unable to work per se because you’ve been branded a rapist? If anyone can say yes, stop reading now and ask a man who was [legally] destroyed and/or raped in the name of a lying woman who was not.

If you stopped reading, a single rape of a woman, would obviously be worse than decades of imprisonment, decades of gang-rape, decades of attacks they cannot ever escape, being forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life, being hated and spat on by your community, the vicious media, the ill-informed public, having your life destroyed for doing no crime at all. And finally, be bankrupt and detained in your own home as seen in Polanski’s case. All for committing the oh so heinous crime of having sex, or sleeping with your own underage girlfriend, or as in his case sleeping with a minor, like EVERYONE else is doing it right NOW on this festering cesspool planet called feminism and NONE of them will be endlessly vilified. Yes, if you believe that a woman or female teenager is more valuable than a man or boy, then of course, the ‘rape’ of a woman or sex with a minor is worse than a false rape accusation that destroys your ENTIRE life.

Prison rape however often goes unreported, obviously, since no one cares, and inmate victims often receive inadequate treatment for the severe physical and psychological effects of such prolonged sexual assault, if they receive treatment at all, causing only more physical and mental problems, at the increased risk of contracting fatal diseases in the course. Prison rape endangers public safety as well, by making brutalised inmates more likely to commit crimes when they are released, as 600,000 inmates are each year, or infect the next victim, thus self-perpetuating and creating a vicious cycle of violent abuse and brutal crimes. Hence, the US sporting the highest crime and incarnation rate in the world. Victims of prison rape suffer severe physical and psychological trauma that hinder their ability to re/integrate into the community and maintain stable employment and/or relationships upon their release from prison.

They are therefore more likely to become homeless and/or require government assistance, might end up rapists themselves in severe cases and/or criminals otherwise, are many times hounded to total destruction by society, if they don’t kill themselves beforehand, mentally destroyed, and/or physically damaged for life that might have been a good life before that fatal sex. Members of the public and government officials are largely unaware of the epidemic character of prison rape (and/or false rape accusers) and the day-to-day horrors experienced by these victimised inmates. Since they cannot escape this systematic abuse, their life is infinitely more traumatising than that of any rape victim who suffered a single attack, however violent. But such logic and facts eludes the dazed and confused feminist brain.

One very tragic story like so many goes; in 1973 a harmless young student protester couldn’t pay the measly $10 bail after being arrested at a pray-in at the White House. In the Washington DC lockup, he was almost immediately attacked by fellow prisoners, sodomised and forced to perform fellatio while being nearly beaten to death for three solid days. He was raped all day and all night by dozens of men till he was a bleeding piece of pulp, brutally held down and unable to even scream in agony. No guard came to his rescue, the uncaring doctors patched him up half-heartedly, he never recovered and killed himself soon after, too traumatised and injured. Such is not even a rare tragedy, and he wasn’t even a criminal, not even a falsely accused or real rapist inmates target for that reason, no, he was just a young man let down by the criminal system, the criminal guards, to be abused by real criminals inside. Other more ‘lucky’ men, are sold between inmates as sex slaves, forced to do all kinds of other jobs for their ‘owner’, i.e., pimp/‘protector’, and have to serve them at will. Or even others and the guards.

Men beaten and dragged into the ‘covered wagon’ (a ‘blanket tent’ set up to deflect view) are set upon by dozens of men. They have all their teeth knocked out, are forced to perform fellatio for hours and hours in agony while being savagely sodomised until they literally gush/ed blood from both ends, gagged and passed out. Even if the guards were able to detect what’s going on (and they most certainly know what’s going on) they would not do a thing. Many died that way, and no one cared. Where is the outrage for these savagely mistreated victims systematically being abused over days or years, worse than even a non-incarcerated onetime rape victim, when more rapes occur in US prisons than outside? These violated men are wrecks for life, if they ever survive, or sanely. The numbers of male and female rape victims combined outside prison walls are far fewer than the attacks on men committed by men combined in all US penitentiaries in the name of women.

That is truly shocking. Not a young girl having sex with an older man.

Today, in most US states, the judge now informs a rape trial jury that:

(1) An allegation of rape does not require any evidence of corroboration;

Nice, so I say you orally and vaginally raped and/or sodomised me, end of story.

(2) There is no requirement for medical evidence;

Perfect, and since I won’t show any forcible rape and/or sodomy anyway, no problem, it’s not required to be evident anymore. (And it WOULD!)

(3) There is no requirement for DNA evidence;

So, in that case I can accuse even a stranger who was nowhere near any ‘victim’, or, say it was from my ‘attacker’, when it was from someone else. (Very much as in Polanski’s case, where they secured the girl’s panties with ‘semen evidence’, though there was no semen/saliva/blood found inside her vaginally and/or anally. Meaning, it was corrupted ‘evidence’ and from another man she had slept with before or after, since the panties were brought in only two days later. It’s inadmissible ‘evidence’ at any rate.)

(4) There is no requirement for a second witness;

So, someone like the caretaker who witness the girl drinking that champagne on her own free will, and Anjelica Huston, who testified that Polanski’s ‘victim’ showed NO signs of the usual emotional trauma, let alone ‘rape’ and/or ‘sodomy’, or her proclaimed ‘fear’ of him, or her previous ‘reluctance’ or or or, are conveniently rendered irrelevant. NOTHING to support Geimer in any form. (Before Huston was in fact intimidated by the cops to testify against Polanski in exchange for dropping cocaine charges, but didn’t need to, (since there never was a trial on the mother’s ‘pressing’ wishes), which was just another factor forcing Polanski into that plea.)

In short, in the oh so ‘civilised’ US the only requirement for a rape conviction was, and still is, the bare allegation made by a complainant. Voila, you are now officially a rapist. Even if Huston had witnessed her having casual sex with Polanski, (or even if she saw the girl seducing Polanski) none of that could ever be taken into account, which would clearly exonerate him of anything else she had had accused him of later. Even the manner in which the jury is selected today is tainted with this insane attitude that ‘evidence’ does not matter, witnesses don’t matter, credence does no matter, let alone any ‘justice’. In many states, prosecutors can demand that during the selection process, each prospective juror must agree that he/she would not require corroboration of a crime. Got that? NO ‘EVIDENCE’ REQUIRED! If the juror disagrees with this demand, he/she can be excused, ergo, the jurors will ALWAYS be FOR the ‘victim’ only, even is she never was raped in any form. Now THAT is ‘justice’!

I wonder what happens if a woman is accused by a young man that she had raped him, with her own body or some sex toy, while intoxicated or not, restrained or not, unconscious or not. I’m sure the feminists will scramble to her support and twist and turn it to MAKE it ‘consensual’, or of course the sole ‘fault’ of the man she did any of it, or better still, twist it around some more to make it appear that he had raped her. Wait for the day that NO genuine rape victim will be believed anymore unless too obvious physical signs say so with this type of insanity. As you can see, many state legislatures are effectively creating new ‘victims’ artificially, by keeping out the sexual history of the complainant on the issue of consent, if she had lied before, while however allowing into evidence the sexual history of the defendant. In effect, purposely creating imaginary victims to create even more however real victims through their lies.

If it happens to be a minor, it’s even more irrelevant that NO rape and/or sodomy e.g. took place. Or, if she had drunk, or she seduced the adult first and even said so. It’s all irrelevant, and therefore the handy plea bargain comes into play especially designed for that, (rather than in fact present all facts) so a man can STILL be condemned and end up in jail, and he can STILL be raped there in her place. This is sheer sexist politics and not based upon relevancy or any kind of vital evidence and even more essential, justice, let alone any moral fibre the law should be based on. This kind of extremely biased legislation is systematically making it easier to obtain false rape convictions, and while those guilty of actual rape should be convicted and are in fact easy to identify by concrete evidence or one attack too many, those who are accused of it and never did the dastardly deed, should be allowed to defend themselves adequately in court to weed out false accusations and be declared innocent.

The members of such kangaroo court juries are the triers of ‘claims’ not ‘facts’, yet treat them as such. They first hear the account of the complainant, and if the defendant elects to testify, they hear the testimony of the defendant as pointless as it is by now. While in Polanski’s case the medieval evidence was brought before the grand jury, to declared no drugged rape and no sodomy had taken place and there never even was a count for alcohol plying, therefore the plea deal was struck, since this was the classic ‘she said he said’ situation in which jury members would have decided what they ‘believe’ is the ‘truth’, not what the ‘facts’ are, liable to be highly biased for various reasons, and therefore they had decided to cut it short with the deal mainly on the mother’s pressure. Never mind the corrupt judge had his own ideas, who in fact had his own teenage liaisons while he was in his fifties, and later married a hardly age of consent old woman thirty years his junior. So much for double standards US court style, while sending Polanski down for doing exactly the same.

Now, in an attempt to provide greater ‘credibility’ to the complainant, or rather the false rape accuser, since hardly any visibly injured and clearly abused female needs any further evidence or credibility anymore the real victim would always show, and thereby tipping the scales of justice in favour of false convictions even further no matter how unjust or innocent the accused, two women, of course, wrote a ‘psychological description’ of what they termed the ‘Rape Trauma Syndrome’ in 1974 – which is mind-boggling the least.

For example, if a woman recants her story and admits that she was not raped, the prosecution can put a supposed Rape Trauma Syndrome ‘expert’ on the stand to testify that this ‘behaviour’ was in fact, ‘consistent with being raped’, as illogical as it sounds. The implication is of course in order that the original rape story should be believed even if not true. This demonstrates the legalised abuse of the Rape Trauma Syndrome as a confirmatory bias-based description of pure make-believe. This highly multifaceted ‘syndrome’ demonstrates a built-in prejudice towards confirming that a ‘rape’ happened even if it had not, plain and simple. In a process like this, ALL ‘symptoms’ lead to the same conclusion that, ‘IT HAPPENED’. Other descriptions found in the Rape Trauma Syndrome explain that if a woman immediately reports a real, OR even false, crime, such action is ‘also consistent with’ the ‘typical reactions’ of a rape victim. The paradox is staggering to put it mildly.

And best of all, this same so-called ‘syndrome’ explains that if the woman waits for years to report, that is ‘also consistent with’ the ‘typical reactions’ of a rape victim, completely ignoring the fact that she had a life in between, sex with several partners, even children and a family. To talk about a suffered rape which was reported or not, the attacker was locked up or not, yeah, but ‘report’ it only decades later, at NO evidence? There’s no logic in that unless the accuser has ulterior motives. The Rape Trauma Syndrome ‘experts’ also explain that if a woman becomes flirtatious, or promiscuous, see Lewis (long before she met Polanski in fact), such behaviour is also consistent with’ the ‘typical reactions’ of a rape victim, But, if the woman is withdrawn and shuns from sex, and is in fact more likely, that ‘too is consistent’ with the ‘typical reactions’ of a rape victim when they’re clearly total opposites.

Even if one considers different people reacting differently, but the majority in fact reacts more alike than not, especially in traumatising situations, to accept total opposites as being applicable for something the victims suffered in the same way, felt the same shock and pain, were equally ‘traumatised’ to the given certain degree of injury, is utterly illogical. But they even say, should the woman cry when testifying, such behaviour is of course ‘consistent with’ the ‘typical reaction’ of a rape victim, while, if a woman does not cry, even that is ‘also consistent with’ the ‘typical reaction’ of a rape victim. The list of conflicting descriptions covers basically every conceivable behaviour that a human being might have over the course of a lifetime. As you can see, this makes ANY ‘behaviour’ irrefutable ‘evidence’ that supports ALL charges of ANY alleged rape victim. In effect, the accused stands ZERO chances to be found innocent, and ANY allegations are FACT, even when they’re NOT.

I wonder what they call someone who sued a man a decade after a never proven, or in fact not even previously declared, and physical and/or mental ‘abuse’ suddenly was proclaimed, when they really just milk the ‘compensation culture’ born from the ‘rape culture’. While in the UK the government is clamping down on such frivolous claims, arguing, the misperception to sue everything and everyone in sight for the slightest ‘injury’, especially if ‘imaginary’, for extortionate amounts of money, undermining personal responsibility and respect for the law, this creates unnecessary burdens through an exaggerated fear of litigation, since it may be difficult to disprove the existence of certain claimed injuries, such as ‘ emotional distress’ Geimer e.g. sued Polanski over, increasing the likelihood of perjury by plaintiffs feigning such ‘torts’, the US is in/famous for doing the exact opposite. It’s lunacy beyond lunacy in case of a false report.

In many US states, the sentencing laws have also become much more restrictive and severe. For example, in California the law used to state that a defendant could be sentenced up to eight years on one count of ‘rape’, with two years for each subsequent count. That law was changed to punish the convicted with an eight-year sentence for each count now, not three, or four, no, a massive six-year leap, and all counts are to be served consecutively. In other words, two counts of ‘rape’, even if NO signs of ‘rape’ ever existed, can be punished with a sixteen year prison term instead of an eight-year, plus two-year add-on, for a total of ten years. More disturbing is the prosecutor’s ability to turn a single alleged rape into numerous counts, because different sexual acts during one encounter can now be considered separate crimes.

For example, the falsely convicted could be sentenced to eight years for intercourse, eight years for ‘rape’ with a foreign object (e.g. a finger), and eight years for alleged sodomy even if NO signs are evident. And believe me, any forced or ‘dry’ sodomy IS ALWAYS visible and very painful. If not, try it out for yourself, and see how ludicrous Geimer’s claims were that Polanski had sodomised her even twice, and that without the slightest signs of damage, pain or the least visible soreness, which effectively makes her the only woman on Earth to have survived such a repeat attack utterly unscathed, and Polanski the only man to have managed that without any vital lube or other needed preparations, not to have her thrash and scream like hell. Besides, there’s absolute no logic in sodomising someone and then still withdraw to ejaculate outside, since no traces of semen (or saliva) were found anywhere on or inside her, despite claiming he had ejaculated over her back (but at one point said he had sodomised her from the ‘front’). Funny that teens always think they’re so clever, only to be found out to be big liars when science discredits their every, or adults’, fabrication.

Polanski could have looked at fifty years simply for sleeping with a minor (if the prosecution had asked for it, otherwise it was max twenty no one however asked for either but be set free on probation, while violent assault doesn’t get you half that) – or, if taking the single counts in the same ‘add-on’ manner on top, despite NO proof, it might have given him twice that. In the case of sleeping with a minor in California today you’re in fact [still] better off, since that gives you a ‘mere’ one minimum or two years maximum for unlawful sexual intercourse. Hence, the plea bargain to plead guilty to only one count for sex with a minor no matter how many counts were brought in originally that were found doubtful and therefore dropped. Though, any other ‘add-on’, if true or not, can still be taken into consideration if a trial took place and the jurors said so, or, if it’s not going straight to probation as it’s in fact statute, or otherwise you’re fucked. Most likely by another inmate, so don’t drop the soap. If it weren’t so horrible, that ‘prison joke’ might even be funny.

If the complainant alleges that the accused stopped the ‘rape’ and then started over, as it was in Polanski’s case and Geimer had claimed that they were interrupted by Huston while he sodomised her, instead of actually calling on her ‘help’ mind you to stop him, and then returned to ‘finish’, (though it clearly never happened either way so there was no need to call on help), each new act now becomes an additional count. A simple touch or kiss got you years already then, unless the count was dropped, let alone any actual intercourse no matter how long it took. That’s why Polanski faced a count of ‘lewd act’, for the kissing and caressing he had admitted to, or ‘oral copulation’ (then termed ‘perversion’) for the cunnilingus (NOT penis to mouth as in fellatio) he however had refuted and could never be proven anyway at no saliva traces. Extreme sentences of thirty or more years have become commonplace these days as a result of the utterly unacceptable changes and clearly arbitrary add-ons, (while some murderers don’t get that since the act of murder is only ‘one’ count, and only the level of brutality is reflected in a longer jail sentences termed as aggravated assault, and then are released on parole at one point). Or of course true rapists, who used real brute force and inflicted real physical and mental injury. But who cares about any proof or justice. The US ‘vengeful justice system’ is not compatible with real justice, still stuck in the Dark Ages with death penalties, absurd three hundred years prison sentences for multiple sexual acts with your own girlfriend.

Someone who looked at the police records of two large US mid western state universities, over a period of years, found that of the total 64 rape accusations, 32 (50%) were eventually recanted, i.e., were false accusations, and not because they saw no chances of winning since there never was rape and the other cases were prosecuted. Unlike the city police in other studies, the university police did not use polygraph examinations, the investigations were all performed by female officers and the accusers recanted themselves at one point. This extremely high figure is however slightly lower than the total number of false accusations in contrast reported to any city police setting it as high as 65% in places by now, and, it is obvious that many of these false accusations or those on campus still resulted in convictions. In 2007 in LA with 3.8 million people, there were 718 violent crimes and 26 forcible rapes per 100.000 people – whereas in NY with over twice the population, there were 614 violent crimes and only 11 forcible rapes per 100.000. Now, if that can be seen as ‘rampant’ rape, but in contrast a whopping 90 000 cases were actually reported, means the majority evidently are false accusations, yet in both cases the majority of men were sent to prison despite being innocent of ‘actual rape’. So to say, rapes are ‘very rarely reported’ to law enforcement is obviously just as false at that number of overall reports.

Different categorisations and maximum punishments for ‘rape’ under [wider] federal US law outside the one Californian example, now state:

Both: ‘Rape using violence [and] or the threat of violence to override consent’, and, ‘Rape by causing fear in the victim for themselves [and] or for another person to override consent’ > Unlimited fine. Imprisonment > 0-unlimited years. Life imprisonment > yes.

Meaning, even if it was not ‘forcible intercourse’ as described by law to be ‘actual rape’, it now says, ‘rape’ is: ‘forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal or oral penetration by the offender (s) (NOT only [forcible] vaginal intercourse anymore). This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a finger, or ‘sex toy’. It includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of ‘rape’.

So, someone who merely ‘attempted’ to ‘rape’, i.e., ‘threatened’ the ‘victim’ of actual ‘rape’, (if true or not) is thrown into the same basket as someone who ‘actually’ forcibly raped someone which once was the sole description of ‘rape’. Murderers and torturers should get life, not anyone like that. Therefore, the overall number of ‘rapes’, has obviously increased since it now includes other [un/wanted] sexual contracts/acts outside the actual [forced] intercourse. (Even if true or not, unless physical evidence backs up forcible intercourse outright.)

‘Rape by giving a drug or intoxicant to a person that renders them unable to give consent’ (that on top of any physical/actual ‘rape’ and according to the degree of incapability) > Unlimited fine. Imprisonment > 0-15 years. Life imprisonment > no.

‘Statutory rape  involving an adult perpetrator’ > Unlimited fine. Imprisonment > 0-15 years. Life imprisonment > no. (That even if the minor consented, or initiated it, and also said she did so. No matter, the adult is the only one punished. No justice in that at all.)

‘Statutory rape involving an adult perpetrator with a previous conviction’ > Unlimited fine. Imprisonment > 0-unlimited years. Life imprisonment > yes. (By ‘previous conviction’, it could well mean on the base of a former false accusation, or in fact any other non-sexual, or non-violent crime, while someone, who brutally murders another, also gets ‘life’. Great balance that.)

‘Statutory rape involving a perpetrator who is a minor’ > Unlimited fine. Imprisonment > 0-15 years. Life imprisonment > no. (So, a teenager who slept with his own girlfriend of merely ‘one’ year his junior, can end up in prison for up to 15 years! But NOT the other way around! Girls ALWAYS walk free! So much for ‘equality’! So, why was Geimer’s older boyfriend not done for SR? Or her mother’s much much older boyfriend? Their names weren’t ‘Polanski’.)

‘When a person causes the rape of a child under 12 > Unlimited fine. Imprisonment > 0-10 years. Life imprisonment > no. (Which falls under the ‘paedophilia’ type of sexual contact (and in itself is not unlawful, only acting on it is) since 13+ year olds are considered adolescents before the law before reaching [individual] age of consent, if it is against the child’s wish, and even if not.)

‘When a person causes the rape of a child under 12 by a third person’ > Unlimited fine. Imprisonment > 0-20 years. Life imprisonment > no. (That’s pretty self-explanatory, i.e., I tell you to rape some child and if you do it I get locked up for it too – But, why the one who only instigated a rape of a child can get more than the actual rapist, is beyond me. (Unless it’s a number switch.) I got all that from an official site, so why is the law for someone who causes a woman, or man, being raped by a third party missing?)

However, if a false rape accuser forces others to rape an innocent accused adult or adolescent, she’s not getting a day in jail, and the actual perpetrator/s not much behind bars either. So, why is their horrific act minimised when it clearly is the same kind of violation perpetrated by someone else as shown? And, it also means in both cases, that if a child gets raped, even if violently, which I personally consider much more depraved than when an adult woman (or man) gets violated who could stand a much better chance at defending herself, (or deal with it better physically and mentally), the perpetrator is looking at less time than a rapist of an older victim when it ‘morally’ should be the other way round. So in that case, someone who either forcibly, or not at all, ‘raped’ someone can be inside for life, in effect being the ‘same’ as a real rapist, while someone who killed even brutally, tortured and maimed a child, woman or man, might ‘look’ at life, BUT can be paroled at one point.

All in all, what it boils down to is that ALL sex gets mindlessly punished and the once established line between actual forcible [vaginal] intercourse being seen as ‘rape’ only, unwanted or consensual (over or underage) oral and/or vaginal, and/or anal sex now too declared ‘rape’, is utterly eradicated as separate acts. And, looking at the punishments for the gender and/or age differences, only the act of an adult woman getting raped is seen as ‘true rape’, while a perpetrator who raped a man or truly defenceless child in the same way, gets less. What a surprise. And, by putting attempted rape, violent or even only verbal threat/s of rape (real or false), into the same bracket as actual forcible intercourse besides, (or even murder in regards to punishment) it minimises the actual violent act/s completely, (or the murder) equates it with a non-intrusive (or even harmless) act, and both in fact get the same penalty. Just like sex with a minor puts the man into the same basket as a violent offender who actually hurt someone. Where the logic let alone fairness in all this is eludes me entirely. But then I’m not used to illogical US anti-sex laws.

Technically they should streamline the age of consent laws as well as rethink these insane blanket sex laws, and in fact treat each case on a more individual basis. Meaning, each underaged pubescent teenager should [also] be evaluated for their physical development and/or mental maturity no matter their actual chronological age. I. e., if a teenage girl, who is fourteen e.g., clearly is so well developed to be taken for an eighteen, twenty year old, as it happened in Geimer’s case, and her mental aptitude is matched, (since her mother said she’s very precocious and Polanski and the others thought her very mature and much older than she was) her own culpability in the act/s and course of event/s should therefore be taken into account.

That in order to not so much punish the minor for the sex, but alleviate the adult’s part in it in accordance with the minor’s own experiences in sexual matters, own willingness, own overall actions, own extent of ‘informed consent’, and/or own drugs/alcohol related knowledge/use. In effect, everything the Rape Shield Laws make impossible to see taken into evidence, including if they had cried rape before. That alone would be fair to the defendant without undermining the potential victim’s actual part in it, since it clearly took two to tango, and not turn the minor automatically into this pathetic little, oh so conveniently helpless ‘victim’, no matter her own actions/desires and family background shaping her sexual experience on her way to answerable adulthood. But that would be intelligent and accepting responsibilities long before the law suddenly allows/forces them to do so, and not let her get away with it, learn zero up to the point of official age of consent, and only the adult pays for it even if the minor seduced the adult.

Now, in contrast, some even more deluded US feminists seriously proposed this even greater lunacy, spitting right into the face of fairness as the final nail in the coffin of any shred of justice left:

“The presumption of innocence, as it is not specifically iterated anywhere in the [US] Constitution, will NOT attach to ‘sex crimes’. (While it is shamefully true not to be encoded in the US Constitution, the concept of the ‘presumption of innocence’ however is one of the most basic in our system of justice. This basic right comes to us from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is universally considered common law. The concept is embodied in several ‘provisions’ of the Constitution though, such as the  right to remain silent and the right to a jury, and, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial, at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence. In practice, the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the state/accuser prove the charges against the defendant Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of all criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. I wonder what happens if ‘THEY’ ran out of luck with these fundamental ‘human rights’ they want to ditch. And, why ‘exactly’ should it not attach to ‘sex crimes’? When murder or torture is much worse? I personally would feel much more traumatised if I had some caustic agent poured all over me, or were set alight, maimed, cut to ribbons causing visible scarring and terrible suffering, rather than endure a single attack of forcible rape no matter how brutal.)

“Instead, all individuals will be presumed to exist in a state of ‘non-consent’. As such, defendants accused of sex crimes will bear the burden of proof, and will have to prove their innocence. (Which is entirely contraire to what the law in fact says, even in the US law books, where it by principle falls on the prosecution needing to prove the defendant guilty, as opposed to the defendant [only] needing to prove himself innocent.) There is a danger inherent in such a system that a few innocent men will be punished, and this is quite unfortunate. (‘Few’? Not according to statistics!) It is not, however, more unfortunate than men raping with impunity in epidemic proportions simply because their victims are unable to prove to a room full of misogynists that, despite the ridiculous presumption of a default state of consent, they did not consent to a sex act. (The only ‘epidemic’ is false rape accusers, NOT rapists, and it’s called ‘misandrists’.) Victims will decide whether a crime has occurred, and defendants will not.” (Excuse me? And there I was thinking a defendant has a fundamental right to decide on his own fate, or who exactly the ‘victim’ is. Guess not.)

“This might frighten men, some of whom will claim that women will use the law to punish men out of vengeance. (Must be true then!) That might happen once in awhile, but our job is to protect the largest number of people possible, and false rape accusations are about a hundredth as common as rapes that go unpunished (Actually, it’s the other way round, and no one seems to care that innocent men are being ‘made guilty’ by that kind of fascist talk or practice and being raped en masse by now.) Any defendant convicted of rape will be assumed to have proven he is incapable of responsibly exercising his sexuality in society. (Really? So, what about all these ‘irresponsible’ ‘women’ who cannot do the same, hm? Do they not exist? ‘Promiscuous’, lying, drug addicts like Lewis? Guess not. No, she’s an innocent saint no matter what.) As such, the penalty for rape will be immediate and irreversible castration.”

No matter if guilty or not. No matter if actual rape occurred or not – one more innocent man scarred for life – physically and mentally.

I’m sure any intelligently minded man or woman will regard this in horror, see it as the sheer madness it is on top of the escalating insanity we’re dealing with already – it’s utter misandry gone overboard, manifesting itself in the final insult to the principles of fundamental justice, and the right for all accused to be seen ‘innocent until proven guilty’, next to the right of proper defence, not being ‘made guilty’ from the very onset by such sickening lynch mob fantasies and laws. As seen with Polanski.

Sometimes I think, these pathetic women revel in their self-imposed status as ‘poor little victim’ one has to pity, since it’s easier to whine and cry on and on in a brain-numbing mantra of pathetic sulking and petulant aggressions, shift all responsibilities into someone else’s court, while in the same breath they delude themselves into being liberated and assertive. Sure, if your petty little world consists of what fancy new shoes and dress to wear for another party to get pissed, make a pampered ass of yourself, then have sex with some gullible male who fell for your flirty pouting and then cry rape because he didn’t like your shallow world view once sober, or your drunken performance in or out of bed.

It is also my own contention that false rape accusations are simply arbitrary vigilante actions, that of a more insidious sort which manifests itself in other lynch mobs. False accusations are vigilante forces using legal mechanisms, which are designed to bring about their own brand of ‘justice’, for the ends of personal vengeance and to deliberately bring about injustice in order to avoid responsibility. They are often committed by those women who feel ‘wronged’ in some way, are in fact, ‘incapable of responsibly exercising sexuality in society’, although the men who are accused of that are typically innocent of any crime. It is to be expected that feminists will defend a woman’s right to run to the courts if she should feel the slightest bit ‘upset’, or her pretty hair was ruffled, and that a man should pay the price out of all proportion for her own actions. See Geimer.

And see liar Lewis, coldly saying, ‘Polanski should get what he deserves’, a typical call for ‘vengeance’, not any ‘justice’ she ab/uses as lever purely in order to influence an already deeply corrupted case, an unsound arrest and extradition request. These deluded women, who cannot separate their subjective emotional states from an objective, grounded conception of true justice, should simply be humiliated, exposed of lying. Made to pay for their lies. They should be laughed at, scorned and shunned by all who believe that the law should serve all people as best that it can, not for personal vengeance games, and should take every precaution to never punish one who is innocent. This is a matter more important than punishing the guilty few. It is ironic, if not sickening, that feminism, a movement and an ideology which so frequently touts its commitment to liberty, ‘equality’ to men, violates and desecrates the principle of respect for the freedom of innocent men, abuse men worse than men have ever abused women.

Of course, hardcore feminists will disagree with this, but truth is, this is nothing short of the unacceptable breakdown of justice per se, only intelligent people in fact recognise, especially in Polanski’s case, civilised (sexual or otherwise) conduct. No, it’s the mindless instrumentalisation of it all and of man per se by means of biased laws coming from the deepest dark ages, with crooked DAs like Cooley mindlessly pursuing this case for personal gain, and the future we face when we allow the worst of criminal atrocities to be minimised and trivialised as ‘little white rape lies’. Quite frankly, women have lost the right to be believed when they cry rape, causing untold damage to the falsely accused and any real rape victim, who will, unless physical evidence can prove they were violated, soon not be believed anymore, which is even more tragic. The breakdown of the judicial system is an anathema to all fair justice per se.

If such hard evidence cannot be provided, these women should never be believed, they should be sent to prison in disgrace. The costs to innocent people, when we believe women simply because they are women, a minor, or claimed they said ‘no’, are simply too high. Feminists will cry about rape being an under-reported crime, but the truth is, that ‘rape’ is the only over-reported crime in the western world. It is generally estimated that up to half of all reported ‘rapes’ are completely fabricated, and any other ‘statistics’ like ‘2%’ are delusional, just like any actual rape figures are delusional. And, it is feminists who have fomented this deluded culture where this can occur, by crying over and over that women never lie about rape, despite centuries of proof to the contrary, that they must be believed, while they remain completely silent in the face of legal atrocities like these.

To cry rape is a centuries old practice, and it NEVER served any justice, and day by day we see more cases emerging that women had lied, especially in the US, and then they say the woman was ‘ill’, or whatnot else, to ‘justify’ her lies, have pity on her, scramble for the Rape Trauma Symptoms manual. Or, even more sickening, they argue that if women who cry rape are prosecuted, it will deter real rape victims from coming forward. Not likely. I would be surprised if there is a single real rape victim who hasn’t, or won’t, report the crime, considering how easy it is these days. Obviously there is no shame in reporting rape, since women who have not even been raped manage to report it all the time. Every single day, hiding behind Rape Shield Laws designed to make every man a rapist. Men like Polanski.

I know for certain that radical feminists will actually be happy to hear of this atrocity, because a man was harmed, they get off on this kind of thing. The more suffering they can inflict on men, the more they enjoy it, because they are sick and defective people in their self-repressed and self-obsessive crusade, which renders them the oh so helpless victims they can mould into like whining children, rather than empower themselves and be equal to men, take any penalty like any man. They are the same sick and defective people who peddle lies about rape, demonise all men, criminalise innocent men, and say nothing when the effects of their hatred lead to atrocities of these men being raped by other men, of course, confirming that ALL men are rapists.

In fact, they will keep on insisting that women must be believed and rendered victims, and that all men are rapists. It’s called pathetic irresponsibility, and it’s called sick masochism and legalised sadism. And that is why feminists are worse than rapists. While rapists are sick individuals committing individual crimes who will sooner or later be caught because they cannot stop, escalate their attacks, these sick feminists have institutionalised and systematised all kinds of legalised abuse against men as a whole, including, but not limited to, actual rape and sexual abuse on a grand scale who in contrast will never stop. A good number of feminists belong in prison for what they have done so far already, and should only be permitted back into civilisation once they have been reformed.

It is a biologically driven desire to protect women by playing hero for them, any of them. At times men play that role so well that they look at a lying, drug addled hooker, and imagine that she is actually a damsel in distress, needs their help and love. See Lewis, a sad and embittered ex-lover of many men, who comes back with a sick vengeance set against the weakest man she can find. Then, her sickening feminist attorney goes after an old and innocent man who has never committed a crime in his life, other than sleep with a willing minor, an oh so heinous crime indeed, and both these sick/ening women seek out to do everything they can to destroy everything about him in even more sick/ening pleasure. These revolting pests created things like Rape Shield Laws in the name of women so that even when the accuser is a defective, lying, drug addled hooker, it can’t be taken into account by jurors in determining her credibility, and there goes another innocent man, sent into hell.

It has long been proven that the Rape Shield Laws failed  the real victim and punished the innocent, yet feminists will host rallies and instigate other fomentations, scramble around frantically for counter-arguments to indicate that she actually WAS raped or ‘abused’ at not the slightest PROOF, even broadening the definition of ‘rape’ or ‘abuse’ to make it applicable. Or they simply lie, or bend the term ‘paedophile’, or that somehow men are to blame for her false accusation, along with everything else, like her drug addiction and bulimia. It’s like men blaming their rape victims for their own rape in fact. While in the same breath they detest all prostitutes, thinking them as degrading themselves to all these ‘evil men’, they yet use her illusory ‘victimhood’ for their own causes. Just like they use/d Geimer as their doctrine of ‘drugged and raped and sodomised’ abuse that never was, while giving no thought to her own wishes today of that Polanski should be set free. No genuine rape victim would ask for that, since even false accusers wish hell on their innocent victims.

Worse still, they say, a rape victim can forgive her attacker, while forgetting that NO genuine rape victim would ever ‘campaign’ for the release of her accused like Geimer has, ever since Polanski evidently escaped the clutches of the already defective and corrupt law. She might ‘forgive’, true, but not ever miss the ONE opportunity to see the man finally be brought to ‘justice’ for his oh so heinous crime of having slept with her. But that’s of course the catch, since she knows he didn’t rape and sodomise her, no matter what she said as a teenager, or was made to say simply for her age. But she never wanted him in prison and cannot condemn him for something he never did, and most of all that he has already paid for it all ages ago and ever since, as the typical example of legalised cry rape insanity. All for her petty little lies as a teenager, making herself out as this innocent little victim she never was. Polanski’s autobiography, which goes into great detail about the event/s, makes it clear why so many rather believe his side of the story, compared to her very convoluted and ultimately unproven claims.

Especially in view of her later declarations of only ten years back, saying in a US TV documentary, “He had sex with me. He wasn’t hurting me and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that.” “It wasn’t rape.” So that alone is most certainly NOT ‘rape’, but in fact a rather blasé take on her own serious claims she had levied against him as a teenager, and insult to his decades-long public abuse. How can anyone say, ‘it wasn’t rape’, ‘he wasn’t hurting me and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that’, but insists on having ‘cried’ and ‘begged him to stop’? That’s contradictive and illogical Polanski nor Huston corroborated in any form. To make someone cry and beg to stop and he doesn’t, that IS ‘mean’. So in that case, she indeed had lied she had shown growing ‘reluctance’ and ‘resistance’, since ‘rape’ DOES ‘hurt’, just so to render her own actions as entirely invalid. Also, if the doctor couldn’t find any signs of ‘force’, it’s as she said, ‘not forceful’ [or] ‘rape’, but ‘intercourse’, and she plenty lubricated not to show. If the adult woman later says it wasn’t ‘rape’, who are these deluded busybodies of today wallowing in their repetitive rape and sodomy rhetoric to argue otherwise?

Geimer had plenty opportunities to just get up, leave, walk out that door, and not give us this, she ‘cried and begged’ nonsense and not act on that in contrast, in order to render her active participation in it null and void. If she let him pull down her panties as she claimed, though she was in fact still undressed after drying off together, THAT would have been the time to really tell him off. NOT let him proceed to kiss her, caress her, lie down after going into another room al/together, and then let him enter her as he put it. At no protestations and/or pain unprepared intercourse would most certainly cause, this doesn’t look like ‘reluctance’. At no signs of  ‘force’, verbal or otherwise by her own admission, when she later said in that same interview, she ‘let him get it over with it’, that too doesn’t sound like she’s in fact suffering any of it, actively refusing his actions, or in any mind to really ‘stop’ him. NO one ever said that Polanski was sexually violent – or that females had to ‘cry and beg’ him to ‘stop’ or were ‘afraid’ of him – which in Geimer’s sole case is a clear sign of her having made all that ‘reluctance’ up in order to nullify her every own actions from start to finish.

Even though a minor is naturally capable to decide to have sex with someone older, for being very mature, knowledgeable and/or experienced, the law working on the basis that the female, or minor in general, is unable to give consent even if verbally given, and is therefore simply disallowed to consent, it is of course highly controversial to many teenagers and adults, rightly decrying such ‘legalised oppression’ to have sex with whom they choose no matter their partner’s age. The state has no right to tell them or us what we may do with our bodies, let alone interfere in what we do in the bedroom – as long as we are not hurting anyone else. But such logic and freedom is all but illusionary. Rape Shield Laws sought to revolutionise rape trials, two decades after their adoption by most states and the federal government, however, they have given rise to a debate in which neither side was satisfied with them. Polanski clearly fell victim to this law, and advocates say they have not worked as well as desired, while opponents argue that their effect has been to deny defendants a fair trial. As seen in Polanski’s ‘classical’ case. The legal future of these revolutionary laws hinges on a difficult question: how can courts protect (genuine) victims without curtailing the rights of (genuinely innocent) defendants?

These laws restrict or prohibit the use of evidence respecting the sexual history of potential rape victims and the alleged victims of other sexual offences. (Or to allow prior history of drug and alcohol ab/use and/or habits submitted into the records.) Before the enactment of Rape Shield Laws trials often focused on the ‘chastity’ of the victim to determine whether the alleged victim was actually raped, unless physical evidence had been presented to prove forcible rape. Rarely is physical resistance formally required anymore to show non-consent these days. Furthermore, requirements that the victim’s testimony be corroborated and that jurors be cautioned to give this testimony special scrutiny have largely disappeared. Hence, the inability of Polanski’s lawyer to present his crucial findings of Geimer’s prior sexual encounters/habits outside those she had admitted to, although, for Geimer not to declare her true sexual history Rittenband simply rendered inadmissible, he should have held her in contempt of court, or allowed the clerk’s eye witness report of Geimer’s ‘unchaste’ behaviour outside her own attorney’s office, which clearly proved there never was any ‘rape’, or anything related to her drug and alcohol history clearly her family’s fault.

Or anything related to her family’s own background of drug habits as a direct influence on her in general, to find a correlation between her non-refusal to take the Quaalude, or the champagne she ‘liked’ by her own admission. I.e., the illegal drug distribution and drug use of her mother’s boyfriend, that of the mother, and her sister’s institutionalisation for Quaalude abuse, to demonstrate drug abuse and habit in an environment of using drugs freely. I.e., give Polanski more grounds that Geimer willingly took the Quaalude and champagne herself without his direct request or forcing her to swallow either, just as he had claimed. Therefore, the prosecution knowing of their very lax approach to drugs and sex pervading her family background, the prosecutor obviously had a hard time to prove otherwise, or Geimer’s ‘innocence’, not being a virgin anymore, not being unused to alcohol and drugs, or he had gone for the drugged rape count as plea deal, not simple underage sex.

Though there was no count for the plying of alcohol, this of course was attributable to the sequence of events from obtaining the alcohol (from Jack Nicholson’s fridge) to her voluntary taking it in the company of Polanski and the caretaker, and the fact that the bottle was still half filled the grand jury seems to have understood and substituted a crucial ‘witness’, and that she could not make up that he had ‘coerced’ her into taking it in any form. Hence, no intoxication to the level she had claimed, or credible accusation that he ‘gave’ her the champagne she could have refused at any rate. Which of course was just another means of nullifying her own participation in it entirely. Or rather fabrication to that end. But, since Geimer had admitted to Polanski that she ‘liked’ champagne, HE was in fact subtly being ‘directed’ by HER to go for the champagne rather than anything else, not vice versa. She could have chosen any other drink available she even mentioned in her testimony, ‘juices and stuff’. And then they say only adults are manipulative.

The fact that despite her being a minor, her family obviously freely allowed her access to these legal or even illegal substances, they clearly were in breach of several laws themselves long before Polanski had met her mother or Geimer a year later, and no one seems to have seen as important to be prosecuted alongside Polanski. So in that respect, Polanski most certainly had no part in her drug and alcohol history or preference for champagne and knowledge of Quaalude, (since he even had to ask her if what he found in Nicholson’s bathroom was Quaaludes she then confirmed, and most of all said, “I took it”, NOT that he literally ‘gave’ it to her, she still could have refused) or for her to consume both with her own hands on her own fee will since she never said he had forced her to take it. They also weren’t held responsible for her having had sex before like they should have. But of course only the older man was. It’s a natural and healthy process to have sex, and some do start early. Whereas taking drugs to the point of institutionalisation and consuming alcohol at an even younger age and becoming drunk she had told  the court panel about, apart from lying, is not.

When no two adolescents would react or behave in the same way and someone however really had informed consent, acts maturely, knowledgeable of what she was doing, this kind of implicitly ‘non[-informed] consent’ and blanket victimisation dogma is a very generalising view and blanket exercise of the law many find unconstitutional, since it takes away the constitutional freedom of choice to have sex with whomever one chooses, engage in any sex act they want, drunk or not, unless it involves prepubescent children who undoubtedly have no ‘informed knowledge’ of their situation, no matter they might ‘like’ it, ‘persuaded’ into it or not, other than showing clear signs of distress/injuries and unwillingness to participate if it was forced on them. Therefore the statutory rape sections unjustly punish the perpetrator without regard for the implicitly non-consensual status of the adolescent minor, even if they had initiated the sex, though is not as harshly punished as forcible rape, and depends on the age of the minor. It shouldn’t be ‘punished’ at all.

Hence, if she had been fourteen already, the count of sodomy had been disallowed unless found as forcible, since it was only unlawful to engage in anal sex with someone below that age when the adult was more than ten years her senior. So someone her own age may penetrate her anally, but vaginal sex was or is unlawful in the US under varying state ages of consent – simply to avoid underage pregnancies as they put it – which is a rather imbecilic and impractical approach, since teens will always have sex and simple education and protection is a more intelligent way, than punishing people for having underage sex. Or becoming pregnant. That makes no sense to me at all, and I for one am glad to live in the UK, where young women are handed the Pill on our free health care system, even without consent from their parents, and not men of all ages being sent into prison hell for sleeping with them. The US sex laws are very damaging, needlessly punitive rather than supportive. So, how do you expect a minor to grow up and finally assume responsibility if the law says you’re incapable of giving informed consent, you’re a little victim? Guess they prefer their powerless victim status.

Indeed, in parts of the USA they are old enough to get married, but in fact aren’t allowed to have sex, which is the really intelligent part. Adolescents CAN consent, if the ‘law’ however says they can’t, the law is simply at far-reaching odds with REALITY, since teenagers will always have sex and should have the right to have sex with older partners too. Plus, having a vagina doesn’t give one half of the participants in any sexual contact case the getting a pass on truth card. That feminists, who imposed all these perverted anti-sex and collectively damaging Rape Shield laws on us to give the man ZERO changes of any defence in any rape accusation, will disagree on that is clear, since only the male is punished for getting them pregnant, or sleep with them, despite being married, or for having casual sex they can twist into rape. Great development that, and with feminists pressing for any female to be considered a ‘child’, and in any sex case be found innocent and exempt of any culpable involvement and responsibility, let alone face punishment if they cried rape, that’s just another step towards the insidious, female partner equals innocent little child and male partner equals punishable perpetrator by default dogma. Great women’s lib ‘equality’, ‘girls’. Why not ban heterosexual sex altogether or become lesbians, since they couldn’t care less about gay sex.

Issues surrounding rape and the law have been fiercely debated for years not only in the States, and one controversial ‘reform’, which has been in effect in most states in recent years, has been the removal of statutes requiring that rape victims physically resist the attack at least once. Prior to this widely open for abuse/misinterpretation reform, victims of rape were required to display clear signs of the slightest injury, i.e., vaginal and/or anal trauma etc., or other physical injuries, in order to prove that they did not consent to sexual relations, which would be logical. Rape Shield Laws now however solely keep the focus of a rape prosecution on the actions of the defendant rather than (also) the (prior and/or relevant) actions of the alleged victim to share responsibility, which was unconditionally in favour of the ‘victim’ to ‘spare’ her cross-examination and in genuine rape cases, perhaps relive her ordeal. Or in fact, to be found out to have lied.

By the 1990s a very serious backlash against the laws had developed since ever more men were found innocent years later, died in prison, were destroyed in prison, ever more false accusers recanted or were found out, and that after the accused had been in prison for months already, was attacked or not, and even when released, his life was destroyed either way while the lying accuser got away with it. Defence attorneys, law professors, and civil liberties as well as men’s rights advocates maintained that the laws were unfair to criminal defendants. Or men in general, since females accused of rape/abuse are treated much more leniently to begin with. Their main arguments: restrictions on the admission of all relevant evidence undermined the defence attorney’s goal of providing their best defence, and more significantly, such restrictions deprived the defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to a full defence, including confronting his accuser and presenting witnesses in his favour.

As seen in Polanski’s case, who had been forced to plead on many levels to the ultimately only applicable count of unlawful sex, simply for Geimer having been a minor, after her refusal to face him in court to prove her claims, a jury to hear his side in any form, or take physical evidence into account. Though the overall ‘evidence’ had already discredited her main claims down to all but counts two, and that purely for Polanski’s in fact having admitted to them himself, and not for having been ‘proven as fact’. If he had not admitted to any of them, which he initially did and pleaded not guilty on all counts first, no evidence the prosecution had could have proven otherwise. Hence, no trial at no evidence of oral copulation, rape and/or ‘double’ sodomy, no proof of impairing drugs or alcohol consumption involved that rendered Geimer incapable to resist sexual relations with Polanski the way she had described, physically and/or verbally, regardless of her claims that she had told him to stop, or ‘given [him] some resistance’ he had refuted, and logic of sequence of events permitting, never happened.

Since she therefore did not even seize the slimmest opportunity to remove herself from the scene over the course of hours, the mother clearly had no other choice than to press for that plea deal realising that she had lied. Or told her to lie, with the evidence however resulting in the same plea bargain. It indeed is truly a frustrating ‘he said she said’ word against word scenario, as seen so soften, these Rape Shield Laws have exploited to the point of doing real harm to innocent men, when faced with brutal sexual assault in prison as a result of rigid laws. While defence attorneys continued to introduce evidence that the Rape Shield Laws were designed to bar efforts to establish the wider course of events to establish the truth, they could succeed if the evidence was introduced ‘creatively’, chiefly because state laws left judges wide discretion and unclear direction on what to consider admissible evidence or not. As seen in Rittenband’s case, not allowing any mentioned crucial evidence, intent on ‘spinning out’ the case to satisfy his own public ego.

utalised to become real criminals with plenty of them innocent to start with). Opponents of Rape Shield Laws fully acknowledge/d that women face traditional obstacles in rape prosecutions, but saw the laws as a very inadequate and ultimately even damaging ‘remedy’ if they denied defendants due process and sent the innocent to jail, merely providing ‘protection’ to accusers, while defendants suddenly found themselves in serious danger of being sexually assaulted themselves while inside. Which in itself is a very disturbing daily occurrence in US jails and prisons, and hardly any of the staff member perpetrators will ever end up in their own cells, with inmate assailants already incarcerated at any rate. That many people deny or don’t care about these facts, or freely apply double standards in Polanski’s case and that he should face such disproportionate punishment and dangers, is legally unfair and simply unacceptable in general. To anyone. There is absolutely no evidence that prison sentences ‘reform’, ‘deter’ inmates or ‘cures’ anything, other than overpopulate America’s prisons full of them where they are being brutalised to become real criminals with plenty of them innocent to start with.

The entire justice system is antiquated and so are those handing out these disproportionately punitive sentences for minor sex offences, with women committing the same crimes hardly being handed down the same punishments. Frustrating critics of these changes in the law is the fact that appellate courts have consistently upheld Rape Shield Laws, despite finding that many trial courts have applied the laws unconstitutionally, and from early enthusiasm to increasing scepticism, many men were unjustly punished, and more civil suits were lodged to milk the system. Their initial intention was to remove barriers that prevented women from reporting rape and winning more convictions. By now both proponents and opponents believe reform is needed, yet they disagree on what form it should take. Proponents want to strengthen Rape Shield Laws to increase protections for women, while opponents counter that the laws are already strongly biased against defendants, depriving them of fundamental liberties, and ultimately sending more innocent men to jail on a mere word called, ‘no’, the ‘victim’ might never have uttered. And of course for the blanket condemnation of those who engage in consensual albeit unlawful underage sex, where only the adult is punished for it without regard, which is most certainly unjust.

So, unless the accused of rape (or underage sex) is able to prove quadriplegia or clinical death at the time of an alleged attack (and often even when men can, sarcasm here), most of us will sit and wait for the orgasmic moment that the gavel comes down on his head to declare him, GUILTY! When those falsely accused are convicted, and many of them have been and will be in this bleak future, they are sent to prisons where they are regarded as the lowest of the low, and are often subjected to the very tortures for which they were wrongfully convicted over a period of years. They might be left rendered severely injured physically and most certainly mentally, even killed, and if not inside a jail, then outside, unable to continue, wrecked for life, and kill themselves. It happened often enough. It’s the feminist perversion of our entire society, which has diminished the importance of truth as compared to doubtlessly required sensitivity shown to a potential victim, and has corrupted justice in favour of a cruel, self-indulgent sense of gender-based vindictiveness which is simply sickening.

A typical account of a true rape attack is terrible, it might take years of grief and agony to recover but most will if the injuries inflicted have long healed and the affected mind can move on. So what is the typical picture of a false rape accusation? Here it is.

Indefensible accusations. Injustice. Forced to confess, or accept a fatal plea bargain. Economic disaster. Jail time, with most likely brutal rape and other atrocities done to the man. Endless terror. Possible probation if he’s still alive. Then ankle monitor, sex offender registration. Being seen as a criminal lower than a torturer or murderer. Loss of friends. Loss of work. A life of dread and fear of attacks. Endless persecution. Vile media abuse. Years and years of registering with police. Haunted. Reviled. A man without a country. A man that can’t leave the country he fled to. Others when moving have to reregister. When they travel, they have to register. When they apply for a job, they have to explain and most likely won’t be believed. Afraid to have a wife, afraid to bring a family into their private hell. A never ending LIFE SENTENCE. You can NEVER put it behind you unlike a rape victim who was attacked ONCE unless severely injured or even killed. Which fortunately is very rare, no matter what feminists say, let alone the unscrupulous and vile rape accuser who got away with impunity. You will NEVER be allowed! The punishment is never-ending, cruel, unusual and for LIFE! See Polanski!

Helping genuine rape victims is a wonderful thing; fomenting false accusations by suggestion every rape claim must be true, which means the male who was accused MUST be a rapist, and denigrating the victimisation of the falsely accused by pretending they are a myth, is morally corrupt, criminal and utterly unacceptable. Looking at ‘rape crisis centres’, they all say it’s a myth that there are false rape accusations, women cannot rape and that if no force was used it’s still rape. I don’t think so. Up to now in England we had a law called, ‘the Morgan ruling’, which said, ‘to convict a man of rape first of all, the prosecution had to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the woman was not consenting, that a man is not guilty of rape if he believed she was consenting.’ Right, and then they conveniently abolished and replaced it with the concept of ‘reasonable steps’. i.e., deciding whether a ‘belief’ is ‘reasonable’ is done by considering any ‘steps’ he has taken to ascertain whether she consented. So, HE has to carry the burden to do ALL the ‘steps’, then ‘believes’ she consented, and then she said she had not, and who will be ‘believed’? Only SHE. Great ‘equality’ that and sharing of responsibilities, where only the male has to shoulder all the onus of accountability, and even if he has, if she said he hadn’t, he gets slung in prison. That’s simply unacceptable. How did we ever get to the point where so many are falsely accused and unjustly punished?

The answer is feminism. Feminism, which built upon the chivalrous myths of male guilt and female innocence to its own advantage. Feminism, which continues to propagandise on these very myths today. Feminism, which explicitly declared that all men are violators and all men are victims. And there I was thinking that women would love to be empowered, be regarded the same as men, and not some poor little helpless girls, rendered ‘victims’ of these very men. Guess not. Those who embrace this oppressive movement see life as an epic battle against forces of evil and their world is pure black (men) and pure white (women). They need to feel, even if they are not, that they are victims surrounded by sinister men bent on their destruction, must play the suffering oppressed, wallowing in imaginary self-pity, while in fact owning all the power there is and the vast majority of men seem quite happy on not doing them any harm. Yet these sad females need to believe they know better, especially through third-party violence enforced by the laws they forced on us all to be used against men exclusively. They need to sanctify their paranoid belief, a false belief that lies at the core of their misandruous ideology. They seek total cultural and political domination by using the space of ‘women’s rights’ within society to destroy the space of men’s rights.

The intolerance they promote and the refusal to permit any dissent are on display within their inner sanctums of victimhood. You only need to look at these women’s programs, discussing how to look pretty for men, sad fashion followers with no character or brain, or when they talk about Polanski. Then the pure venom they spew of absolutely misinformation about the case is staggering, yet they need to vent their ignorant outrage. These shallow pastors of misandry set in pretty make-up sporting false claws and seductive hair have established their despotic agendas of femaledom, and they seek to replicate these little tyrannies on a larger scale. In its more lucid moments, the movement has coalesced around grotesque statements regarding all men as rapists, or paedophiles. Or all men as worthless, or that men cannot be victims as men, or even be raped, and probably think that these men getting raped in prison right now by other men is fun and they deserve it. I wonder what will happen if one of their own family members or friends is accused of rape and were abused like that. But I guess, feminists don’t have too many male friends anyway.

Hardcore feminism is the linchpin of a legal and cultural system which enables false rape accusations and of its damaging continuation. The two are intertwined so as to be inseparable. Feminism is about unabated hatred of men and boys and normal, intelligent and strong women. Beautiful and intelligent women like Polanski’s third wife, a strong-minded and supportive woman no one can make weak or boss around, not even Polanski himself by his own admission, which, and whom he admires. Polanski detests pathetic females playing the poor little victim, and none of his longer affairs were dumb airheads. They were liberated and liberal characters like Nastassja Kinski, who was a free thinker and free lover, whom he had mentored beyond their once sexual bond, and for that they were grateful resulting in lasting friendship. Unlike Lewis he too mentored, had an affair with, and look what she made of it, became a lying drug addict and has-been porn starlet. A typical ‘clientele’ of a typical sensationalist ‘lawyer’ sleazeball Gloria Allred likes to represent.

Some of the more forthright feminists even openly advocate the disfigurement or ‘culling’ of men like Polanski, redolent of Nazi ideology he in fact had escaped. Radical feminism benefits from human error, misery, and chaos. It divides and destroys. Like Nazism. It destroyed his family when Polanski was a child, and now it destroyed his adult life through its anti-male, anti-father, anti-child, anti-mother, and paradoxically utterly anti-woman doctrines cemented in anti-sex laws, after some hippie ‘family’ went on a killing spree that destroyed his wife and unborn child. Feminism is an insidious ideology manipulating itself through fronts like women’s studies, women’s issues, women’s shelters, social services and counselling they simply hijack for their own agendas. Sure, there is abuse of women, unacceptable sex trade and sex tourism, but there is abuse of children and men too, and the actual figures don’t say that women are MORE abused than men. On the contrary, by now men are the abused in our western society, and more women abuse children, not men, and then these women wonder why men become misogynistic chauvinists in return.

While many women don’t commit the most violent offences by mere physical force, unless they’re possessed by rage or drugs and can take down any unaware man, or of course child, they do so in other cunning and cruel ways which has just as devastating effects. Or, they simply use other men to do their own the greater harm if they don’t deploy other typical ‘female weapons’. It’s a self-perpetuating vicious cycle they have created themselves, and by the looks of it, love to suffer it too in masochistic pleasure. Feminism is founded on half-truths like victimisation and exploitation. The work of some women, like mothers confined to households to manage their families, is scorned by feminists because the feminist agenda gives no importance to the family. Also, the contributions or sacrifices made by some husbands and fathers or men in general are totally ignored. And in this world of half-truths the exploitation of men, women and children by the powers-that-be is ignored because it does not fit in with the dictatorial feminist agenda. Feminists still claim to want ‘equality’, which it was at one point but is no longer ‘needed’, and now ‘equality’ means to them, ‘preferential treatment’.

The notion of the American woman (or most any other female from a western country, since I doubt they care much for oppressed Muslim women to be abused who suffer typically lesser freedom and rights) as a powerless ‘victim’ is one of the most absurd notions ever foisted upon anyone. American women live, on average, seven years longer than men. They control 86% of all personal wealth and make up 55% of current college graduates. Women have long taken up plenty seats in the political arena, so they can hardly claim to be left out of the political decision-making process. They win almost automatically in child custody disputes no matter their character. Women are the victim of only about 35% of all violent crimes, including actual rape, and only about 25% of all murders, yet, because of our society’s exaggerated concern and respect for them only, special legislation has been passed to punish ‘violence against women’ as if it were a more heinous crime than ‘violence against men’ or ‘violence against children’. And, a massive 80% of all suicides are committed by males. I wonder why.

It is also not true that women are the ‘weaker sex’ they want to make themselves out to be. Fact is, boys are much more fragile, both physically and psychologically than girls, and hence require greater medical and psychiatric care, simply because the female body was built for the trauma of childbirth, pregnancy, nurturing, NO man could handle. Men succumb to a larger number of diseases in much greater numbers than women do throughout their lives. The greater susceptibility of boys and men to diseases explains why more boys die in childhood and fail to reach sexual maturity and why men’s average life expectancy is shorter than women’s. If we claim that equality is less important in cases where people could lose out by being ‘equal’, then we destroy the principle that ALL people are equal at all times, i.e., men and women, NOT women ABOVE men, or below portrayed as ‘victims’ when it pleases them. We cannot object to the high rate of false rape accusations without opposing feminism, and we cannot ‘ease up’ on feminism without ‘easing up’ on a system which feasts on the suffering of innocent men. Men like Polanski.

Oh sure, we know Polanski didn’t rape Geimer, and that by her own admission. Ergo, she too is a ‘false rape accuser’ plain and simple, since she had accused him of all sorts of horrible things over three decades back when she was a teenager that could never be proven, then saying the very opposite later where only the ‘non-consensual’ factor remained for her former status as a minor. And even Lewis never said he ‘raped’ her, conveniently calling it ‘sexual abuse’, but forgot to tell us what exactly happened, or rather never happened. But you know what? He’s a ‘man’, and they’re all guilty of crimes dating back thousands of years. They’re collateral damage, collaterally guilty for what others did to her, or she rather did to herself, blaming it all on Polanski now, toss any responsibility into the fetid media wind. Accuse and charge him anyway. Evidence doesn’t matter. Justice doesn’t matter. Right and wrong doesn’t matter. Feed you own sick ego, where charges are still pending because feminism is the primordial hatred of men, and she’s the best and ugliest example par excellence.

And, what exactly is the purpose of publicly naming names once someone is accused? Smear his name all over that media in sick pleasure? To shame and humiliate a male long before he might be found innocent or [made] guilty? Why would a woman to her mother, the police and an entire grand jury cry about rape: ‘revenge’? ‘Attention’? Geimer’s boyfriend said he didn’t believe her when she said Polanski had sex with her. In the UK we had a woman some time back who cried rape by a stranger, only to be found out she lied out of boredom wanting attention, took up vital police time and recourses, cost taxpayers money. And she never paid for any of it. Or, is it to ‘explain’ away a consensual encounter a partner might disapproved of, or simply because someone was a minor? Make her the innocent party by default times two, for her gender and her age? For women who have actually been raped, naming isn’t necessary for therapy, and it doesn’t help put a real rapist behind bars either. If a woman claims a male raped her, doesn’t it make more sense to encourage her to go to the authorities rather than shout his name from the highest mountaintop, or go to the media to proclaim her pathetic lies in case of a false claim? Wouldn’t this help other women? Guess not.

On the other hand, others argue, if a real sexual assault victim’s name were made public alongside the accused, then, before long, there would be no ‘shame’ associated with being a rape victim, only more sympathy. So, telling genuine victims that they should be hidden is tantamount to telling them that they should be ‘ashamed’, that they have something to hide. Some argue that justice for both men and women would be better served in many ways by demanding no anonymity for both women accusers and the accused, rather than demand anonymity for male defendants, which however would take away many a stigma and public persecution for one. Have it both ways or neither way, otherwise it’s simply sexist, unfair and highly damaging. Withhold both their names, or publish both, which might just deter some false rape accusers to start with, since they cannot hide behind their cushy anonymity any longer, not smear the man’s name only all over the local press when he’s a nobody, or all over the global media when he’s ‘famous’. Someone like Polanski.

But, apart from these ill-informed petty little online voices not being too intelligent cross-representations of the wider public to begin with, tactfulness and discretion isn’t the feminist and law’s view and approach in such matters anyhow, only when it comes to ‘women’s issues’, descending on the male with verbal bile in blind attacks like a pack of hyenas and not the slightest concern that he might be ‘innocent’. Wonder what happens if it were their own grand/father, or brother, or… Or only engaged in the oh so heinous act of sleeping with a minor, like so many did and do and forever will do. It’s bureaucratisation of sex WE should own without harm or guilt feelings, not the rigid legalisation telling us of what people of different ages should be allowed to indulge in. But no – they’re ALL rapists, end of. Found innocent of actual rape later doesn’t matter, that he suffered decades of abuse doesn’t matter, and the fact that real rapists are running around freely for vital recourses being taken up to pursue someone like Polanski, is of course of no importance either. I call it vindictive lunacy.

But nabbing real rapists isn’t really the goal, is it now? The goal is to empower feminists by perpetuating the cult of fictional ‘victimhood’, where a female accuser need not bother subjecting her claim to time-honoured proof in a court of law, and where a male falsely accused of rape is forced to watch helplessly as he is branded a rapist in the public square. Or the lynching media, especially if someone is ‘famous’. It’s the most horrible thing a woman can do to a man – short of being called a paedophile or murderer. If men had publicly displayed the names of their false rape accusers on t-shirts, how long do you think the public would have allowed that? Not seventeen years as it happened at a US uni, with brainless girls proudly promoting t-shirts of ‘alleged rapists’, not even actual rapists. No, only the falsely accused men now branded rapists for life.

The other day a young actress said she felt raped by the prying media, only to be scorned and was forced to apologise, while anyone can feel ‘raped’ symbolically speaking, and to say it insults the genuine rape victim is farcical overreaction. Besides, these feminists proclaim that they had been raped too, either actually, or mentally. So why not anyone else. But then no real rape victim would say that, only these overzealous feminists, since even a landscape can be ‘raped’ metaphorically speaking. Someone coming to her rescue said to rebuff them: “That whole system of Internet journalists, where no one is called to account, is almost entirely about hate. (How true!) All these people get away with doing it because they have no responsibility to anyone. There are so many little nerds behind their computers, on their little blogs.” Indeed, and I’d call them pathetic little haters or petty little moralists rather than nerds – ignorant, stupid little voices with too much time on their hands disseminating venom to vilify others hiding on the www not even having the full facts.

In fact, I have noticed that most of Polanski’s vocal detractors aren’t even half his age, never even saw any of his films, have no first clues about his life, let alone the facts of this case, yet keep ranting on about it, calling him a monster and whatnot in their glorious stupidity. When it comes to insulting someone like Polanski in the most disgusting name-calling battle ever seen even from the lips of his current prosecutor, no one cares, when it is clearly hate speech, and/or racism. Even prosecutors get away with it. But no, in his case it’s a time-honoured practice to demonise and slander him some more each day I see re-enacted all over the place and mainly on (US) feminist shows and blogs. These sad women are just too thick to see what’s going on here. And then there are equally sad men who parrot their overzealous lies in their pathetic ignorance, both relishing rolling the words ‘he drugged, raped and sodomised his victim’ on their filthy tongues, as if a genital, and most of all anal fixation had taken hold of their oral orifice to spew pure filth, since all they can think of is in fact what comes out of that passage – pure shit, because these people are full of it.

The other week I perused a German feminist’s article from last year who ranted on about Polanski right after his rearrest, (I refuse to name not to soil my blog, as the most prominent figure of these radicals there, Germans all know) who was just as deliberately lying and defiling him not only as the older man who, to her, raped a minor, but a very sexual man who preferred younger, prettier flesh, citing the same old blather of his predatory behaviour as these overzealous US blogs and downright nasty articles, and that he lured his victim/s into his insidious clutches and his oh so ‘heinous crime’ of ‘violating’ a ‘child’. I wonder if they call their own sexually active teenage daughter (three weeks short of turning fourteen) who takes drugs that make her horny, likes champagne that makes her even more uninhibited and looks like a twenty year old, a ‘little girl, or ‘child’. No, they’d call her a young lady, a very mature teenager they proudly parade as a younger, precocious and liberated self.

She even has the audacity to promote her own website with the header: ‘Polanski should face justice! But to date all the director does is pity himself’. Actually he doesn’t, he only bemoans the corrupt US legal system that brought him where he is today – a prisoner in his own home. Stupid woman wouldn’t mind seeing an old man incarcerated over some sex three decades ago he paid for already. This isn’t freedom of speech, this is lying and clear hate speech, which I thought was illegal in Germany too, but I guess not when it comes from ugly feminist lips. In Panama of all places, people, who were found guilty of any crime/s for any length of prison term, are automatically entitled to house arrest when they’re of advanced age on humanitarian grounds. That of course could never happen in the oh so civilised US, where people Polanski’s age are incarnated like everyone else with hardcore criminals, who might only be inside for some non-violent misdemeanour.

These women are full of bitter hatred and hypocritical bigotry, i.e., crap, to put it bluntly, not having the slightest facts of the case besides, and if they do, twist and turn it to their own advantages. She didn’t even notice that it was utterly illogical for Geimer not to call on Huston’s help – but then again, that’s real logic, not the logic of feminists that render all women helpless victims. She even received two Bundeskreuze, believe it or nor, ‘cross of merit’ meant usually for soldiers or other ‘dignitaries’, and I’ll be damned to see the ‘merit’ in being responsible for her feminist waves eroding Germany’s own sexual sanity since decades too now. These insidious women literally lie, and worse still, they think they own the right to fabricate more untruths where and however possible like politicians do at not the slightest repercussions, and that in order to poison and manipulate the already gullible enough public some more, even saying he admitted to the drugged rape/sodomy, or pleaded to it, while in the same breath proclaim he never said sorry for it.

Why should he, if he’s innocent of what they’d love him to be castrated over. Embellishing on the actual facts on any ‘rape’ case like they embellish/ed on the rape statistics is second nature to these unashamed liars, just like the girl in Polanski’s case herself embellished on the actual events, leaving not the slightest room for her own culpability in the entire drama. No, the girl is absolved no matter what, and even if she had been of consenting age, the outcome would have been exactly the same – only the man is guilty – and most likely had even faced the same racist judge and his arbitrary court antics. But these women care about the unacceptable breakdown of the judicial integrity even less than any ‘justice’, while everyone keeps on about that he admitted to all he was accused of – NO HE DID NOT. I bet you, if he were their own grand/father, they’d be pleading on their knees to let him be after all this time. These people are disgusting hypocrites.

The best lie I’ve heard so far in regards to the Oktoberfest photo that had incensed the old judge so much that he demanded Polanski to return from Europe after ten months of stringing him along to sling him inside of Chino in a vindictive show of power abuse, is, that this German activist seriously stated, Polanski was shown with another minor on his arm in the photo, while it in fact was cropped and none of the ‘girls’ on that photo were in fact minors, with him, let alone arm in arm. These pretty young women in their twenties were the partners of his friends who had invited him there to take a break from filming to stay in the money to pay his legal counsel, and if people never saw that in/famous photo, (that it was deliberately doctored by that slimy DA Wells who gave the judge the idea to send the ‘little Pollack’ to Chino in the first place), they’d simply believe it. It’s outrageous Nazi style propaganda no one seems to have any trouble with. The best fabrication was, that she seriously stated, ‘when he did not succeed to make the girl compliant, he raped her anyway, orally and anally, and then kicked her out the door, where she climbed into a taxi, crying’. Are these people deluded? Polanski drove her home in a perfectly non-crying state, never orally or anally raped her, where they looked at the pictures he had taken of her before. ‘Taxi’!? That only shows she has ZERO clues about the case, or simply LIES.

This German ultra feminists also lied some more without reservations by saying Polanski went on to shoot more nude photos of minors afterwards, in reference to the Vogue assignment he in fact had done a year earlier with Kinski, where no one is nude, except him actually, sunbathing on sunny Mediterranean beaches where they took these commercial photos to promote luxury items. In fact, this 1976 Vogue by Polanski with Kinski, I own, shows several full frontal nude girls who are far below any age of consent with only a flower leaf covering their pubic area, shot by another photographer, and yet no one called him a paedophile.  This kind of photography was normal, and no one came to harm. I’m only mentioning all this to illustrate how callously feminists go about destroying someone’s already tainted reputation with sick/ening pleasure, after corrupt lawmakers had done their own damage already, and for people who have no motivation or means to find out the truth (readily available ‘out there’) not knowing better, the added injury done to a man or artist like him is permanent.

But, I was so pleased to read that the few comments on that inflammatory article in fact put that lying activist right into her deserved place in regards to these points, i.e., shamed her, or the repetitive lie that Polanski had admitted to the rape, (as if anyone would actually proclaim they ‘drugged, raped and sodomised’ a ‘child’, least of all someone who in fact hadn’t violated anyone, and I always wonder/ed if these people are generally thick to repeat such carp or just when it comes to spreading lies about the case or Polanski, thinking we would seriously believe it – they musty all think we’re as stupid as they are). So in fact, people DO know better and fight back, but, guess what, these pro-Polanski comments were shortly after deleted – no surprise there. It’s nothing but public manipulation on a grand [Nazi style] scale. Even newscasters say he admitted to all the counts – again, NO HE DID NOT. And, he pleaded to the one count that is ‘on the table’, NONE OTHER ARE. Once a plea deal is struck, the other counts are dropped, and time was done for it, that is IT, end of the judicial story, no matter how much these idiots love to believe otherwise. The count of flight wasn’t even included in the extradition request, so that’s that.

Though I believe in the right to delete comments on your own blog you don’t like for whatever reason or are off topic, but when it comes to official sites and [news] articles, they should adhere to the facts, leave comments as they come in, and not present people’s right-wing opinions as the only truth and allow any negative responses to inflame more blind hatred. If more clever, young people like these countering such pathetic lies with better knowledge, common sense and logic, or believe that Polanski is undoubtedly a victim of the corrupt US legal system and the majority of the unthinking public that likes to pillory intellectuals, that’s not only spot on, but there’s hope yet that not all who sit behind their computers write unacceptable hate speech clad in pathetic, sanctimonious morality play spewing moralistic twaddle without impunity shielded by their cushy anonymity on the www. Maybe they all should get a life. Or have sex and try ‘dry anal intercourse’ for a change – to see that Geimer’s double sodomy claims were pure invention at not the slightest damage or pain.

And, speaking of lying and self-obsessed feminist activists, some German projects called ‘LILA’, the ‘Alliance of autonomous women’s projects against violence’, the ‘NRW’ (similar project) and the ‘Lobby for girls’, all seriously demanded last year that the 25,000 Euros prize money Polanski would have received along with his ‘Golden Icon’ lifetime achievement award in Zurich had he not been rearrested, be ‘donated’, i.e., simply stolen, and given to these projects to combat violence against underaged girls. Now, what does Polanski have to do with ‘violence against German minors’, and, why would any ‘German project’, (or any other for that matter) think they’re entitled to a French director’s well-deserved award money for his own work, or even if he were German? The arrogance and audacity is staggering, and the fact that these fascist-minded people never received any reply from the Zürich festival director who bravely went ahead with the extensive retrospective on Polanski, should make it clear, that these clearly deluded lobbyists cannot simply steal someone’s rightful prize money, just because they believe/d he raped someone, and that in the US nowhere near Deutschland.

Funny thing is, while he made two big budget films in Germany, organised many years of very popular theatre plays being staged all over Germany and Austria with many German and international actors playing in also his own works, these self-righteous lobbyists didn’t ask for any ‘prize money’ off him then, or to be extradited, since he in fact engaged a lot of people from all sectors of the German economy for decades through his work as a revered director, i.e., brought in ‘revenue’ on a large scale for being an artist. I’m sure none of those Germans who had worked on or for his films from the driver to the caterer to the star, in the operas and film studios, anyone concerned, or those in the still running theatre shows of his very popular Dance of the Vampires hit musical making their own living though him and his acclaimed stage work, would ever have demanded his extradition or come up with this sort of ridiculous balderdash, since everyone knew ‘why’ he could not work in Hollywood or the UK. That would be really unwise to bite the generous hand that literally feeds them.

This kind of ill-perceived and clearly defective feminist type thought process reminds me of Lewis’ highly fragmented blame game thinking, who hired an American lawyer, to cry about some illusory sexual abuse in France of some decades back, being English, and needing to proclaim her lies in LA. And there I was thinking a more official Paris venue and authorities would have been the more suitable place, and that right at that time. Guess not. Lewis would later explain that she decided to hire (i.e., ‘pay’) Allred because: “I needed a strong advocate. I felt I needed an American attorney, and I wanted a female.” Sure, someone who didn’t even want to charge or sue Polanski, but bang on about how important Lewis’ claims were in regards to the old case, while I in fact would rather have wanted to see ‘justice’ done for myself. But then again, she was clearly lying and trying to influence the extradition, which evidently failed BIG time and her lies sank without trace.

Busybodying armchair moralists like this deluded German feminist who cannot help but attack others like that, wondering why so many ‘celebrities’ stand behind Polanski (obviously knowing better and that he never raped anyone), are just like those braindead American feminists who seriously had called for his films to be boycotted last year in a glorious show of sheer overkill stupidity. And, after he had won his Oscar for his superb Pianist, some Deep Southerners thought it a good idea to burn his film and poster of it in a typical show of brain-dead lunacy, and some small-town Sheriff needed to point them to the fact that this was a pro Holocaust film and would entirely defeat their objective of blind retaliation with dumb hypocrisy so famous down there. Such could never happen in any civilised part of the world. But what else is to be expected from a militant country like the US. And these feminists, amongst others lost in the same daze of their own oozing ignorance, keep repeating that Polanski’s never shown ‘remorse’ towards his ‘victim’, which is just as incorrect and wishful thinking, and Geimer was, or is, certainly not ‘his’ victim in this endless drama, by her own admission in fact, but the judicial system gone haywire he had escaped.

He said often enough he was sorry for the entire debacle once he had gone back to Europe and is long past his sexual exploits ever since he had settled down again decades ago, when it certainly was not him who had lied to the courts to wriggle out of it again, while in fact saying, “The girl admitted in front of a tribunal that she’s had already sexual intercourse before with other people before meeting me, though the tribunal wasn’t concerned about these other men. When Mr Smith or Mrs Brown sleeps with fourteen year old adolescents who look like eighteen, it doesn’t interest anyone. But when a famous film director does, the law and the press sound the alarm. It seems that I was the only one who found himself before a judge.” Exactly – and only because his name was ‘Polanski’ after a brainless mother had hastily cried rape. The US courts and lawmakers are nothing but pathetic ass kissers to these feminists enabling them to do so in the first place, and theirs are of the same interchangeable standard formulas of misandruous litanies than these women’s and girls’ ‘little white lies’.

I had a mind-boggling commentator on my ‘He Said She Said They Said’ Polanski blog once, who seriously proclaimed that a thirteen year old is not capable yet of properly reading or writing, thinking or deciding for herself, while I thought even a child half that age is able to do all that already, let alone consent to sex, drugs or alcohol, when they most certainly can and do so as teenagers. These people are so desperate to infantilise girls to the extent of becoming unconscious foetuses (just so Polanski remains being the sole culprit), render them lesser capable creatures than they really are, disempowered to the extreme, that all I could do was shake my head in wonder and click ‘delete permanently’. A thirteen, fourteen year old teenager who looks like eighteen, twenty, behaves very mature and knows exactly what she is doing, takes responsibility, certainly needs truly pathetic people like these to reduce her to a helpless little infant, or of course ‘laws’, to procrastinate her natural development and sexuality from the start. No wonder many turn out to be repressed, depressed, rebellious, aggressive, or pampered little airheads who need mommy’s help to decide on what nice little dress to wear, do or say next. Or cry rape when they didn’t like their pretty hair being ruffled during sex.

Some feminists say a rape victim could become very ‘promiscuous’, though I have yet to meet one, and is just another way to ‘ab/use’ a whoring female for their agendas when it suits them. So, what about Polanski? He was very virile, so what made him so sexually active? ‘Rape’? Indeed, he was raped multiple times. First of all, by the Nazis, by taking away his mother as a child, nearly his father and sister, was nearly killed by a bomb and a grenade, war politically speaking. Then, he apparently was violated when he was a teen by that multiple murderer who smashed his head in while in a bunker to steal his money leaving him for dead, physically speaking. Then (after a near fatal car crash and further head trauma) by the Communists, by trashing his ‘western’ film art, (before adopting it themselves) symbolically speaking. Then by the degenerate Manson Family, by killing his wife and unborn child, several close friends, literally speaking. Then by the ugly Hollywood media whores by victimising him over it, even accusing him of the killings, virtually speaking. Then by a nubile teenager for sleeping with him and her ignorant mother by grassing on him, sexually speaking. Then by a media-whoring judge, more ugly media abuse, and then another hideous media whore by playing with him some more for public amusement alongside other corrupt lawmakers, legally speaking. Besides that, he lost many of his friends and colleagues over the years through tragic accidents. I call that physical and mental rape on a mega scale only few can ever deal with.

Speaking of Manson, just so on the side, Larry King of all people has done the inexcusable some while back (who in fact interviewed Geimer too where she said she never wanted Polanski in prison, but also lied as to how he came to ‘choose’ her) – he [too] accused Polanski of having killed his own wife in the biggest blooper he’s ever dropped so far, (getting senile that is) and that in an interview with her own distraught enough sister, Debra Tate. And did he apologise to her, while she tried to keep composed and corrected him? Not once, at least not on film. Now, had Polanski not ever been accused of rape, everyone would have gone for King’s throat, demanded his resignation, or at least a public apology. This way however, no one gave a shit – that’s so disgusting, since these two cases have absolutely nothing do to with each other, and anyone deserves an apology over having been accused of murder on top! Not that they didn’t point the finger at him over that long before right after the horrible events, but now they think it’s an honourable duty to accuse him of all sorts of terrible things by default.

Speaking of US talk show hosts, Oprah Winfrey of all ‘respectable women’ has, on several occasions, presented to her audiences women whose only claim to fame is having had sex with a very, very young male. I.e., ‘jail bait’. Those cheering audiences reward these rapists with standing ovations, but call men who sleep with teens, paedophiles and/or rapists obviously. I call it sick double standards. These are mass media rallies supporting female rapists, or in fact latent paedophiles, with their repackaged ‘toyboys’ beamed to hundreds of millions of women for their ‘lecherous entertainment’. But, when it comes to men, when they look at nubile teens, or sexy women, they’re called evil predators. For every woman that gets actually raped, two or more men who were falsely accused of rape, get raped, and are made an ugly example of on every level. A ‘victim’ is no longer someone who’s had something terrible happen to her, no, a ‘victim’ is now someone who ‘claims’ that something terrible has happened to her. A ‘rapist’ is no longer someone who actually DID rape someone, no, a ‘rapist’ is now someone who was either once touched someone lewdly or, even worse, ‘accused’ of raping someone. Or slept with a teenager.

A paedophile too is no longer someone who loves, cherishes youthful beauty or innocence without the slightest thoughts of ‘abuse’. No, today a ‘paedophile’ is someone who sexually abuses children, corrupting the term itself, since the word ‘paedophilia’ literally translates as ‘love for children’. All ‘-philes’ ‘-philiacs’ are lovers of a particular thing, like, bibliophile, a lover of books. Phil is Greek and means love, and paed/o means child/boy, not even girl. So to curse someone a p[a]edo, means nothing more than the actual minor itself, not the adult and is not meant derogatively. I’m sure no one realises that who calls Polanski a paedo which he isn’t at any rate. He’s probably rather flattered in fact, since he is extremely learned and intelligent and would know what it means, and because he never looked his age but like a teen himself, which was a major factor for his success with the other sex. Sexual preference for teenagers is a highly misunderstood phenomenon in general, and Nabokov’s Lolita tried to demonstrate that through Humbert Humbert, who is obsessed with what he refers to as ‘nymphets’, sexually attractive and precocious girls. Someone like Geimer.

Most people have no idea what a paedophile ‘today’ really means either, that their sexual interest is toward prepubescent youths only and does not include teenagers. Most paedophiles harm children mentally and/or physically, ‘abuse’ them for various reasons and is often based on an abused childhood, not simply ‘sleep’ with them, which is not a paedophiliac marker. Paedophilia has certain psychological characteristics, such as low self-esteem and poor social skills, which in Polanski’s case is obviously more than null and void. Paedophilic men have lower IQs than most, and I doubt Polanski will fit that picture either, or he’d not be a genius film maker who does everything himself before and behind the camera. Regarding disinhibitory traits, paedophiles demonstrate elevated sociopath and tendencies for cognitive distortions, i.e., show anti-social characteristics Polanski never displayed either, or no one would have worked with him. Paedophiles gravitate towards children because they find their company less threatening than that of adults, and if that were the case with Polanski, he’d not be able to function in an adult world he has occupied since decades and worked with mostly adults on his films.

Some even call/ed him a ‘pederast’, not having the slightest clue what THAT actually means either. I’m not gonna enlighten you – look it up for yourselves to see how idiotic that accusation is. The problem is that society stigmatises sex between older men and females, but doesn’t care much if an older woman seduces a teenager, even if he’s underage. He alone is a paedophile and ends up in jail, while she’s not and can claim any real or imaginary childhood ‘abuse’ that ‘led’ her there to avoid jail. Both genders seek ‘equality’, therefore both genders ARE equal, which implies equality in privileges, rights, responsibilities, AND punishments. When was the last time you heard a woman taking her fair share of the blame when talking about a relationship or sex that went sour? It’s always HIS fault. It’s their way of denying their somewhat darker side which is part and parcel of the female nature. This contributes to continued stigmatisation and devaluation of sex and human sexuality and is both ridiculous and dangerous.

Human sexuality (and the need for power for that matter) is one of the most primary, driving life forces we encounter, which rules us, next to the need of food/drink, shelter and oxygen. American society most of all is basically ‘scared’ of anything sexual, while all the time celebrating its hypocritical salaciousness via the media, advertising, fashion, trends, films you name it. They love boobs and porn, but are much more interested in the visceral or patina of sexuality, rather than try to understand its motivations, origins, and simply ‘have sex’ as a natural thing. Our society at large continues to treat sex as dirty and sinful, rather than as a natural and necessary part of everyone’s mental and physical health, wellbeing – ‘humanity’. Therefore, western cultures believe that older men having non-forcible sex with girls in their teens a wrongdoing and an act of rape. But, consequently, older women having the same kind of sex with boys in their teens is indeed the same wrongdoing and an act of rape. But of course it’s not. Men always want younger women, and always get demonised, while women who prefer younger males are not.

To say rape is a ‘crime against society’ is also bullshit – it’s a crime against an individual, since, by eliminating the victim, it eliminates the crime. Only murder or torture is a crime against society, since people rage wars against others on a mass scale and systematically torture people for political reasons. Rape is not a special crime either, only in the selfish feminist handbook; it’s a physical assault on a particular body part that should not be put above any other, while rape of a man finds no such ‘special treatment’ or visibly scarring someone. One moment they say there is no ‘gender’, i.e., ‘sexuality’, and the next they want an assault on exactly that part, i.e., vagina/reproductive organs, receive special consideration, while no one in fact gives the initially life-giving penis any special treatment. That’s pure sexism and should be rooted out, if they ‘really’ want ‘equality’. To play the sexual victim is not only pathetic, but a powerful tool in providing a ‘moral basis’ for any disproportionate redress, retaliation, revenge, or of course public slander and famewhoring that has become an insidious trend by now to cash in on a sordid sex story, which IS wrong.

How did this unacceptable change occur that not only affected Polanski so gravely? By the relentless pressure of well-organised radical feminists like that German activist who introduced it to Germany in the early Seventies coming from France of all places, where she had joined the growing ‘women’s movement’. The only problem is, what all these feminist declare, is not what the law actually says. Under California statutory law, a person is guilty of ‘rape’ only, ‘where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anaesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused’. Under this statute, according to a California state court that interpreted it, in order for a ‘rape’ to occur the victim must be so intoxicated that he or she is incapable of exercising the judgment required to decide whether to consent to those sexual acts. An honest and reasonable but mistaken belief that a sexual partner is not too intoxicated to give legal consent to sexual intercourse IS a defence to rape by intoxication.

Even a minor can consent in that state, though s/he’s just not ‘allowed’ to, which automatically makes them the ‘victim’ ‘twice’, for their age, and mostly him/rarely her the ‘rapist’ by default, put in the same legal basket with real rapists. So in that case, Geimer most certainly was NOT ‘raped’ at any rate, since she had every available means to remove herself from Polanski, physically and mentally capable to do so, but didn’t. If she could say, “It’s alright,” when Polanski asked her if she likes what he’s doing, she’s able to get up and stop liking it, but she didn’t. Every lawyer knows, one’s ability to defend oneself against most claims diminishes with the passage of time; memories fade; evidence, alibis, witnesses disappear and sometimes die. Or at worse, witnesses lie. See Geimer and her mother, or Lewis and her co-conspirator porn director friend Jon Jacobs having conveniently found his own voice to support her lies, after he claimed she so conveniently had told him only some months back of the oh so horrible abuse she conveniently withheld from him all these decades. After having ‘also’ conveniently sat on the ‘evidence’ of having prostituted herself long before and after she met Polanski.

Strong, responsible and self-confident women don’t flutter to the next man when it’s getting tough, or their money runs out, taking the easy way out like Lewis, especially in view of what she did with fourteen ‘for money’. She’s the lowest of the low and her lies are not even worthy to indulge any further. But then again, Jacobs clearly knew she did prostitute herself, or lied, since he made such an emphasis that she had not in the only interview he gave to some unknown online media outlet. I.e., ‘projected’. Admitting to her drug infused past, a mentally unstable woman like Lewis might paint a vivid picture of a ‘rape’ or ‘abuse’, (since she in fact had such fantasies of ‘sexual abuse’, and that by her own admission to ‘prep’ herself for her first nude flick, years after that ‘abuse of the worst kind’ she never suffered at Polanski’s hands) saying in 1987, “I need someone who’s going to strip me down and say, ‘Do it!’ I’ve never done nude scenes, and I can’t wait. I can’t wait to be abused in a film. Maybe it’s a secret fantasy burning inside of me,” while in contrast, if the man is innocent of such ‘abuse’, the most he might be able to honestly say is, “We had sex, nothing else.” Such ‘fantasies’ are not uncommon, and in fact very dangerous, if used against an innocent man.

Polanski was incredulous when he heard the original charges back in 1977, and at a trial today, it would be like a battered old warrior entering a court battle stripped of his shield of rightful defence and his sword of truth facing bloodthirsty jackals, while the accuser can hide behind her crooked shield of law without the slightest evidence. He’d stand NO chances whatsoever. It would be inhuman. And, if he wouldn’t in fact be detained already since over nine months now, some revolting liar like Lewis could send him behind bars even today. No matter his advanced age or innocence in both cases, his traumatic past and losses, his law-abiding life, his new family and highly successful working life since decades, nothing. The horror is hardly imaginable. Good he’s locked up safely inside his very own home far away from the puritanical States with his friends and family for comfort.

On the other hand, the fact that a woman, that traitor politico Widmer-Schlumpf who had sold him out to the LA courts in the first place in exchange for their dirty banking deals that however failed, (and in fact that German feminist had bragged about that she had and even applauded his rearrest) has the last say over the extradition, is not the most comforting prospect either. People keep on about that he should not be allowed preferential treatment in their fight against rape, true, but then again, what has ‘their fight’ to do with him. Besides, he was treated ‘very special’ by these feminist anti-sex laws and corrupt US lawmakers from the start that made an ugly example of him for who and what he was, or is – a famous director, a foreigner, a ‘man’. Perhaps, the principal reason innocent men falsely accused of ‘rape’ are not viewed as ‘victims’ in the same sense that, for example, women who really were raped are viewed as ‘victims’ because of purported past injustices done to some women by ‘men’.

So, when a false rape claim destroys the life of an innocent man the extremist feminists, or even ignorant public, they react with glee and view it as a sort of twisted payback, or at the very least are necessary ‘collateral damage’ to ‘right’ ‘perceived wrongs’ these women did not even suffer. But, why should anyone feel guilty over something he did three decades ago like everyone else had done it around him and didn’t spend a day in prison unlike him, just because today’s self-important purist moralists say it’s suddenly ‘immoral’? And these exact same people who got away with it backstab you all of a sudden? That’s like making someone guilty of their forefathers atrocities committed during a war, or simply be found ‘guilty by association’, just because you’re a ‘man’. Or renowned. Or, because someone stated, she said ‘no’ during sex?

To even suggest that ‘no’ always means ‘no’, regardless of what happens after it is uttered or of course many times not uttered at all, or ‘rape is rape’, is naive the least and insulting in the extreme. It blinks at nuances and the complexities of interpersonal and sexual relations that cannot be ‘regulated’ like a machine. It ignores the fact that a look, a nod, a tender touch is often clearer than any words; it’s called body language, which is universally understood. It’s called sexual signals that need no words. It’s feelings, emotions, with the skin as the best conductor, not ‘words’. No man or woman can be ‘programmed’ to act like robots and keep saying, yes? Yes! Yes? Yes! No! No? Yes! No? Yes! Yes? No! No? Yes! ‘What’!? Should we exclude all other evidence, if an accuser testifies that at some point in time of the sexual encounter where she uttered ‘yes’ and then ‘no’, and yet she obviously didn’t remove herself from the scene, and nothing points to any coercion, or even threat of such to ‘stay’? I say that’s a NO. What if HE stops, or says ‘no’ and just goes to the pub instead? I’m sure these idiot feminists can turn that into some kind of rape too. Or ‘domestic violence’.

Or, why not try to introduce the following to make it even more impossible to have casual sex without turning into a nervous wreck before you even start, or get any kind of pleasure out of it, and accuse him of: ‘he didn’t satisfy me enough’, or, ‘he came too quickly’, or, ‘he gratified only himself’, (if true or not) or, he didn’t do this or that and/or how I like it. Good luck in that future to have ANY ‘safe sex’ outside a welcoming, clean and cosy brothel Victorian style. The im/possibilities are endless and the implications enormous, shifting ALL sexual responsibility and/or performance of ANY sex act into the male corner ONLY in one go on top he cannot ever escape either. I’m sure the feminists would love that lunacy, so they can accuse a man of even more ludicrous ‘failure’, utterly unable and unwilling to take responsibility for their own female ‘sexual conduct’. Why not outlaw sex altogether, and make it a criminal offence per se! For men AND women! IVF seems to be in fashion to some as an alternative, like that sick/ening ‘Octomom’. And while you’re at it, eliminate love and affections too of course no matter the gender or orientation, and, thus breed our next generation of soulless, sexually repressed and deprived men who become real rapists.

Maybe we should introduce ‘sex contracts’ to avoid any of that, to ensure only this or that sex act will be performed or engaged in, for how long, where and how, with or no alcoholic and/or recreational drug use, sex toys or other participants, (or ‘witnesses’). And then every minute the man will be forced to ask for confirmation, and if, after a while the man goes overboard in the throes of passion, she again can cry, RAPE! In that case, all a jury would need to determine to decide if a ‘rape’ occurred is that the accuser states she uttered a single ‘no’, her very own subsequent actions to the very opposite over the next minutes or hours be damned. But that’s exactly what these days is required, a little word called ‘no’. Therefore to say ‘no means no’ is unfeasible fantasy, it’s an insult to versatility, human behaviour, when actual rape can be proven otherwise. The law says only forcible intercourse is ‘actual rape’, (no matter they broadened the term) and it damn well will show. And so does unwanted sodomy. Maybe these feminists should try anal sex to feel the difference. They force it on men, why not on themselves, and I guarantee you, they’d quickly change their tune and some laws.

One way to avoid any false accuser to get away with it, is to tape the encounter. That to say, by CCTV, which is obvious and not illegal, since, if you tape it otherwise, sound and vision, you could be done for privacy law violations. Of course, at the end of the day, you are probably better off being hit with a videotaping charge than a rape charge and end up in prison to get raped there. Some might call this endorsement excessive. However, most spousal abuse is done out of the presence of witnesses. Even if there are witnesses, most would take the attitude that ‘he’ deserved it. However, a camcorder e.g. cannot lie when it is using an atomic clock as its time stamp. Furthermore, battery backup units are used to maintain system power during electrical outages or deliberate disruption of power. This makes it harder for an abusive woman to falsely claim child abuse spousal abuse, or of course, rape. Make sure however, that you never ever put this intimate encounter up on a YouTube style site, or she’d bang you up with more ‘privacy’ charges. On the other hand, one can imagine that if this happens often enough and men take these precautions, the feminist brigade will start lobbying for stricter laws on taping or wiring even your own home too.

The entire concept of ‘rape’ ought to be retired and replaced with aggravated sexual assault at any rate, and any ‘acts’ should be ‘graded’ according to injury/pain, like any other damage to any other body parts. Actual forcible rape is a violent/painful crime, only it involves ‘sexual organs’ in contrast exclusively, but, if there was no violence, no physical injury done to these organs/parts, or threat of violence and/or incapacitation involved that leads to forcible intercourse, it simply wasn’t rape and should not be treated any differently than having your finger cut off. To cut to the basics, why do men rape? I’m sure we all know it’s not about sexuality, but ‘power’, submission, and sometimes violence, the power to exploit. The power to ‘take sex’ with someone who doesn’t want to. The power to get what they want no matter what the other person feels, which is exactly why women ‘rape’ too. The rapist seeks power over others, perhaps as a method of compensating for his or her lack of self-esteem. Another is to view the victim as an ‘object’. The moment s/he’s viewed as a sexual object, rape doesn’t become something they abhor. When they view their prey as a ‘person’, looks frightened, or angry, s/he ceases to be an object, and becomes a person. In such a situation, most cannot commit a ‘rape’. If the outrage about rape is actually about issues like violation of rights and privacy etc., why the less outrage regarding rapes against old or ugly women?

Consider also, that if the real issue is ‘pain’ and ‘violation’, then why do they not feel the same way for other physical/mental ‘violations’? Suppose a woman had her arm cut off, that also is a violation of a woman’s rights to her own body, and most of us would cause much more ‘pain’ and roundly condemn the criminal. But, no ‘moral’ outrage. In fact, all women would rather be raped, than have their arm cut off. But why do women go up in arms against ‘rape’, when for the limb cutting crime, they would never do so? Why are there no, ‘hang the mutilator’ rallies? If women are so psychologically weak and helpless that they cannot emphatically say ‘no’ to sex, push someone away half-heartedly in a show of ‘reluctance’, having a man say, ‘aw, come on’ and they engage in sex after all, and that to these females is no different than shoving a gun in her face to make her have sex, or in fact someone overpowering her to forcibly take her, then we need to seriously rethink how ‘strong’, or rather ‘wilfully weak’ some women really are, beating the drum of their ‘perceived victimhood’ in a mind-numbing mantra.

If a judge inexplicably says that a false accuser ‘could have faced a jail sentence’ if it had not been for any real or imagined ‘psychiatric’, ‘psychological’ and/or ‘emotional’ problems a woman can conveniently claim on top, i.e., the Rape Trauma Syndrome or any other fictitious ‘illness’, physical or ‘mental state’, would the judge give a genuine or innocent ‘rapist’ probation or merely a fine if he exhibited any apparent or real ‘psychiatric’ or ‘emotional problems’, or severe ‘depression’ as it was in Polanski’s case? Rittenband didn’t care one bit about that, and the very suggestion would raise howls of protest in the feminist community, since they would like to see [even alleged] rapists castrated regardless of their fragile mental and/or physical states. Or age. Why the double standards? When men or even boys rape, there’s little regard for the detrimental life experiences that led them to that point, i.e., childhood abuse, or any other ‘trauma’. So why the hypocrisy when it comes to false rape accusers? Because they’re ‘women’, no matter their lies can be more harmful than any actual rape. So, to make it clear, a false rape accuser is NOT EVER a ‘victim’, the accused is, end of. She is a L-I-A-R!

Even a little girl can lie about being ‘raped’, or abused, since it’s easier to blame the little boy for having ‘played doctor’, as it happened recently in the UK after she felt ‘naughty’, and therefore lied to avoid punishment. Pretty much like Geimer. Good enough nothing came of it in contrast and the girl confessed, but now we have the first ten year old sex offender who did nothing more than touch another girl innocently in play. I’m sure this will please the heartless feminist brigade, saying, let this be a lesson, boy, and couldn’t care less that  this ‘boy’ will have zero chances to get anywhere in his life as ‘sex offender’. If you tell someone often enough he’s stupid, if he doesn’t have the right ego to fight such accusation, one day he’ll believe he’s stupid, if you tell a child often enough someone had abused them, they will sooner or later say someone had, believing it or not. So, if you tell a man long enough he’s a rapist, maybe one day he’ll believe it too, and in order to justify this ‘belief’, might even turn into a real rapist to show these women who made him a rapist. It happened often enough with men coming from abusive mothers, and since most wouldn’t rape their mothers, simply rape someone else in a terrible backlash.

There have been so many cases of false rape and ‘child abuse’, it’s really criminal, and most of them occurred in the sexually repressed States bizarrely enough. Or rather, ‘because’. Never believe a child or teenager crying ‘abuse’ or ‘rape’ when it sounds illogical and farfetched, physically or anatomically, ‘medically’ and chronologically impossible. They are prone to fantastic accusations, to either avoid punishment, just for fun, malice or because they were coerced by mostly their own parents or prosecutors, and only then in fact ‘abused’ into lying and became really traumatised. Many of the alleged child abuse accusations we had over the decades, the maliciously manufactured ‘satanic sexual abuse’ hysteria that shook America decades back had in fact hardly any sexual components at all, but ‘genital mutilations’, ‘ritualistic torture’’ or ‘religious delusions’, and many of these or other sexual abuse accusations betrayed a typical child’s or even teen’s ignorance of human anatomy, or ‘logic’, indeed simple knowledge about many things, with lawyers and scheming ‘psychologists’ extracting scores of preposterous claims of abuse, and distressingly gullible people believing in it.

Parents, jurors, even misguided judges, ‘praised’ these clearly coerced ‘victims’ for their courage in disclosing what is plainly impossible, when the prosecutors were never able to extract from their disjointed and contradictory answers a plausible scenario. Yet, not only did they cultivate it in criminal ignorance, their sheer number, variety and inconsistency, would make it obvious to any rational-minded person that they are a fantastic concoction of ‘fears’ and/or ‘fantasies’, abetted by some sick-minded individuals mostly on the prosecution side. But many fell for it and never bothered to apologise over their own highly damaging stupidity after the life of the accused was destroyed at any rate. Same goes for rape cases, where the police and prosecution can turn anyone into an ‘evil predator’ and the fantasising accusers get away with it. See Geimer and her preposterous ‘dry double sodomy’ claims – clearly fabricated fantasies at not the slightest physical evidence. So, to blindly but into the ‘believe the children’ motto, or teens, is sheer folly that can literally destroy people.

Such accusations are characteristic of the bizarre and scatological stories told by ‘impressionable’ or ‘impressing’ teenagers when they are interviewed by adults or corrupt cops who have an obsession with sex, abuse, rape, torture and violence, which blinds them to the ease with which children and teenagers can fabricate horrendous and far-reaching lies, and to question the charges is to question that they could be or were, ‘sexually abused’. Dissension to such ludicrous claims was of course, ‘denial’. More akin to past ‘moral panics’ including witch-hunts, it’s really amazing how ‘paranoid’ and gullible, downright unintelligent Americans are. Nobody cared that these ‘non-victims’ were clearly ‘led’, since kids are easily influenced, and imbedded in this ‘Catch-22’ belief system, is that ‘disclosure’ of events meant the child or teen had indeed been abused, and refusal to disclose also meant the ‘victim’ had been abused and threatened to boot, so there is no way for a child or adolescent to demonstrate that he or she had not been abused no matter their own words.

Pretty much the same what the preposterous ‘Rape Trauma Symptoms’ manual says when it comes to adults or teenagers who cried rape, leaving no room for any participation on the side of the ‘victim’. In all these known child abuse hysteria cases the prosecution was blind to the alternate explanation, i.e., the actual facts, that the children were traumatised by the prosecution and pseudo shrinks and acted up in the most bizarre forms ‘after’ the ‘events’, i.e., became foul-mouthed or aggressive, which of course is a sign of ‘abuse’, but only because they had been through a psychologically terrorising interview process with grownups who wouldn’t take ‘no’ [I was not abused] for an answer. The life of the accused is destroyed even when innocent, while the parents get undeserved compensation, and the remorseless lawmakers and ‘Ersatz scientists’ are ‘promoted’, bumping up the false rape and abuse stats of more however real convictions of innocent people. In the aftermath of this hysteria debacle, the ‘child saving experts’ get defensive, but where is the public apology for the grave harm done? And what about those innocent victims they put in prison? Still there.

To give an example of how ludicrous such accusations are, in the case Geimer, she had stated that Polanski had asked her if he may ‘go through her back’, (in fact actually asking quite politely it seems, rather than just ‘do’ it like rapists would, though obviously he never had said that, after he however had asked her if she was on the Pill and when she said no he replied that he would not come inside her), just so to bring in the ‘sodomy scenario’ for her age – since it was only unlawful to penetrate a teenager anally under the age of fourteen when the man was more than ten years her senior, which also meant that someone her own age could but not the older man. Ludicrous the least. Now, would you say that sounds ‘anatomically correct’? ‘Through your back’’? Rather than go into or ‘up your butt’? Polanski might have had a thick accent, but his grammar was perfectly accurate. Such is a teen’s anatomical description of anal sex who clearly never had it, forced or otherwise. She also said, he put his mouth ‘on’ her vagina, calling cunnilingus ‘cuddliness’, rather than say what he did ‘then’, as in, put his tongue into her, since just leaving your lips on someone’s pubic area doesn’t lead to much, and she never elaborated on it. Or that the sodomy caused pain.

But, instead of protesting any of ‘that’, she gives us this ‘act’ of saying, ‘no, I don’t want to go in there’, (the TV room one level below the bathroom) when she clearly had, and that under her own power and will, or Polanski would have needed to push and drag her about leaving marks on her, and she never said that he had threatened her in any form and not a scratch was found on or inside her. That’s how a teen’s lies are easily exposed, through ‘science facts’, not fiction. So, why keep up the myth of her double sodomy that never was? For one, because people never had anal sex, forced or otherwise, to know better, and because they don’t know that the examining doctor had called her bluff already. Hence, her mother’s tries to bring in the ‘fear of him’ factor the prosecuting DA however ignored as unfounded, simply for the course of events not in line with that.) And yet, Polanski was indicted on the count of sodomy too, just so to make it sound nastier, and because DAs routinely lump the defendant with anything possible the accuser had stated, since in a trial the facts would be confirmed, or lies debunked. If of course there never was a trial, and the all but one counts are dropped in exchange for a plea bargain, since evidence points to these counts as being uncorroborated already, that leaves people in the erroneous belief that all these dropped counts are ‘fact’ – when they never are.

And, ever wondered why the ‘rape conviction’ rates are so low, feminist always decry? Because we actually have significantly less genuine rape cases even globally than those reported, as the LA and NY, or Germany stats already showed, outside systematic rapings as seen in chaotic and lawless war situations perhaps, (feminist don’t give a shit about in contrast, since these women aren’t of any ‘value’ to them in their shallow western world views, or male victims) since only a small percentage of reports are bona fide attacks when looking at overall conviction statistics per country, which therefore appear low because they represent only genuine reports, and not sexual assault, or underage sex, no matter the actual incarceration rate for anything declared ‘rape’ (or ‘statutory rape’) being even higher than that of murder convictions or any other crime combined, violent or non-violent. Even if we add a number of what might be unreported actual rapes, the overall statistics are nowhere near what the feminists want us believe, since the FBI rape report stats clearly refute them.

Meaning, in the US e.g., the majority of men sent inside for ‘rape’ is in fact innocent of rape or any other ‘sexual assault’, or simply because they had sex with a minor. While in return, they create another real rape victim by enabling another man to rape him, when in fact women are less likely to be raped in prison than outside, simply because of only women inmates, though isolated attacks occur through male staff feminist in contrasts don’t care about. The most rapes at any give time are committed within male prisons, not outside, and the vast majority are male victims. That is in line with overall conviction rates for any ‘crimes’, with the States sporting the highest incarnation rate in the word, and most of them are male. Not because they have more [male] criminals, or rapists, but because most of these prisoners are innocent, and all they did was have sex the feminists denied them. One day we’ll have only men who’re interested in men, and feminist lesbians.

When did the most sublime human exchange (‘sex’) become more about power and status than romance? When did it become so pornographic and transactional, so implacably cold and calculating? How about when feminism marched arm in arm with the sexual revolution and turned our culture, our most fundamental relationships, upside down? When women ‘took control’ of their ‘sexuality’, which meant becoming promiscuous, just like men? Or just like they assumed men to be in many cases, wrongly of course. And what made the ‘rape figures’ so high? Easy, include anything possible the feminists declare as ‘rape’ – though only ‘forcible sexual intercourse’ is. But, what those dubious ‘surveys’ come up with, conducted by in-person and telephone interviews, also defines ‘rape’ as follows: including both psychological coercion as well as non/physical force, and attempted rapes. ‘Attempted rape’ includes verbal threats of rape, ‘psychological coercion’, which of course, can mean all manner of things, including, ‘I’ll take your mother to the doctors tomorrow if you make love to me tonight’, bingo, it’s ‘rape’. I call it demented lunacy.

The point is, if any of these feminist surveys were correct, every single family would likely have at least one rapist (and perhaps multiple rapists) and likely double that number of rape victims, male or female. If we punished all the males who committed ‘rape’ as defined by these deluded feminists and broadened laws, they couldn’t build enough jails in the US nation that is already the prison capital of the world. Colleges and the military would be almost entirely female because rapists apparently start when very young. The economy would be devastated because there wouldn’t be enough non-raping men to do the jobs only men can do. So, the highly politicised, fear-mongering numbers suggesting rape is rampant simply insults our intelligence slandering an entire gender. Rape is still common, true, but two points are self-evident: ‘actual rape’ is not anywhere near as ‘rampant’ as other crimes these ‘sexual assault activists’ insist on, and, ‘rape’, i.e., forcible intercourse, is properly classified as a crime and what it stands for ONLY. NOTHING ELSE.

Sleeping with a woman who cries rape after a (maybe drunken) one-night stand is certainly NOT rape (or sex with a willing adolescent minor), but criminal perjury on her part. Becoming intoxicated before sex is voluntary and people who are drunk, and/or took drugs, are responsible for their own actions no matter what, men AND women, regardless of age, END OF. Feminists saying, ‘it is not the alcohol that commits the rape, and it is not an excuse for men to be drunk while raping’, utterly forget that alcohol might lower the inhibition threshold, but, with most men it in fact might result in the inability to get a hard-on in the first place TO, rape. Many men are impotent to begin with, and alcohol is the No. 1 aggravating factor of a bad performance as for rape, true. But, if the woman got herself into that state even with his help, and then has sex, that’s HER problem entirely, NOT his, since SHE too could and SHOULD have shown more ‘responsibility’ and must take the consequences – no matter her ‘age’. FACT. In the UK people rather demand real proof of ‘rape’, and a study shows that juries are reflecting this public opinion, which broadly is that all people have a personal responsibility for their behaviour, regardless of ‘gender’.

In fact, we have prosecuted false rape accusers rather often by now, except they only received a few months in prison, while the man’s entire life was shattered – people who falsely accuse others of other crimes get fined or done for it – just not someone who had destroyed another’s whole future. These are all miscarriages of justice, and there were many more cases than those which receive prominent coverage in the media like some celebrity victim. Those cases of criminal conviction that are routinely quashed by the UK’s Court of Appeal or by the Crown Court for convictions previously obtained in the Magistrates’ Court have received no attention at all, which however make up the vast majority of cases, and these miscarriages in false rape accusations resulting in convictions/exonerations are not rare at all. We’re also thinking of naming false rape accusers officially, since, despite someone having been found innocent, the female still cannot be named. Women who cry rape should be named and shamed, incarcerated and then put on a sex offenders register, not because it has to do with ‘rape’, but criminal perjury, i.e., ‘l-y-i-n-g’, end of.

Some Lawlords in England however have already used Parliamentary privileges to expose some accusers’ identities that saw innocent men imprisoned. But as more often than not, many others are unlikely to face charges for perjury or perverting justice, claiming ‘insufficient evidence’, or citing ‘mental illness’ as a barrier, while they don’t care if a man was ‘mentally ill’ who ‘raped’ someone. These days, men are more at risk from false rape accusations than people dare speak about. In fact, it has been estimated anything up to 40% of rape accusations in the US alone are made up, some say more than half – a figure that has understandably outraged rape support services as much as it has men’s or even women’s issues activists. And the difficulties in nailing down an exact figure only emphasises the difficulty in detecting a good lie. And this is where we come in as a society: reporters treat vile rape lies about innocent men as wholly insignificant compared to the question about whether one man will be charged, or if he is ‘really not guilty’. All men and boys falsely accused of rape, are just collateral damage in the ‘more important’ war on ‘rape’ – but ‘rape’ as defined by, yes, not the average woman or man, or even law, no, the deluded feminist brigade.

Nowadays ‘fondling a ‘child’’, or ‘consensual sex with an adolescent’ can be called ‘rape’ even in press reports, though legally a ‘child’ is only someone under the age of twelve, male or female. So, no matter if some think sex with underage girls or boys should be ‘punished’, the truth should be spelled out and that such manipulative language should be abolished. As seen in Polanski’s case, often enough calling it ‘child rape’ and him a ‘child rapist’ that it makes me sick by now, since the legal code ‘statutory rape’ includes the word ‘rape’, rather than say ‘unlawful sexual intercourse’ (with a minor). This purposeful confusion/omission/slander created by the corruption of the word ‘rape’ helps to whip up a disproportionate punishment frenzy for crimes of ‘adolescent seduction’ calling them ‘children’ instead of adolescents, at the expense of trivialising actual forcible penetrative intercourse, or non-consensual rape and/or sexual abuse directed at real prepubescent children. So the word ‘rape’ is abusively redefined to serve an agenda: to make smaller transgressions look like heinous crimes.

The entire world press, and (almost) everyone swallowed the bait and became manipulated to (again) believe Polanski is a rapist. Because, according to new definitions of ‘child sex’, i.e., underage sex with an adolescent, i.e., NOT prepubescent, a ‘child’ now is anyone under eighteen. Voila, as the French would say. The UN, the US, and Europe too have adopted that ludicrous blanket definition. So, why is a thirteen year old capable to consent to sex with a seventeen year old (boyfriend) but not with a 35+ year old man? Interestingly she can decide to have sex with the teenager, so how come she cannot have sex with a 35+ year old? Age discrimination by law? The always so conveniently cited ‘power imbalance’? ‘Im/morality’? What would happen if it were an older woman rather than man? She’s dubbed a paedophile I suppose, not her older ‘same sex partner’. Or maybe she is called her ‘lesbian lover’ – since it’s two ‘females’ feminists don’t have a problem with. Conversely, they don’t care about homosexuals either, since they of course aren’t interested sexually in any ‘females’.

Similarly, ‘adolescent nudity’ now can be called ‘child pornography’ when centuries back, in the Seventies or even Eighties no one cared and it had nothing to do with actual (child and/or other) pornography. Defining fourteen or seventeen year olds as ‘children’ now, has the collateral effect that suddenly there is no word for an ‘actual child’ of twelve and under anymore, as there is no word left for ‘actual rape’. In fact, you cannot simply spit into your own evolutionary soup suddenly, redefine these recognised laws and words, just because you don’t like them anymore for today’s ‘moral changes’, i.e., repressed morals, and drag people into court for taking nude pictures over three decades ago like Polanski and many others had professionally, or some old sexual misdemeanour that didn’t concern anyone ‘then’ let alone anyone ‘today’ not their business. No one should be held accountable retroactively – f/or changed times. The law implicitly states, no one may suffer greater punishment today over an old misdemeanour, than the law had stipulated at that time, or, if applicable, a lighter penalty of today shall apply. But who cares about any ‘laws’.

People reading ‘child sex case’ not even having the basics of the case, imagine some little kid that was brutalised, when the girl in question was way past puberty and passed for a twenty year old young woman, well developed boobs and all, who willingly had sex with the man who wanted to further her like he had done with others before and after. See Kinski and Lewis. This public confusion no doubt has manipulative motives, as for one, there is no logical need to change the meaning of words that had a clear definition for centuries, before idiot feminists redefined it, and the public is clearly confused when mis/using these words en masse now. Same goes for paedophilia – most people still don’t know what exactly it is, what a paedophile does or not, what the original term stood for, and call men who sleep with adolescents, paedophiles, when they’re clearly not. ‘Stupido’ might be a better word when they’re caught, but ‘sex offender’ is also another term that should never be attached to someone like that. Only someone who forcibly raped and/or sodomised someone, (with his/her own body or tools) with or without drug and alcohol use, someone who caused visible physical (and therefore mental) harm sexually, not some older dude who slept with a nubile teen.

Feminists too successfully restrict/ed women’s right to choose sexual services (i.e., ‘time-honoured prostitution’) as a profession, which however often pays lots more money than other work, and these days when conducted in a safely controlled and clean environment is a ‘decent’ source of income offering casual sex where no one considers themselves as exploited. Of course, men who can pay $100 to an attractive ‘call girl’ are less likely to marry an average looking, aging woman who later will take away half their property and/or demand half their income. Feminists view prostitution as violence against women and favours laws like those in Sweden where the sale of sexual services is legal but oddly enough their purchase is not. I.e., the woman can sell her body, but the ‘John’ who paid for it can be arrested for the sex they exchanged and face prison. And there I was thinking Sweden was more progressive than that. Guess not. So, the Swedish prostitute gets legal money for the legal sex she’s allowed to sell, and he legally ends up inside. Great Scandinavian justice, which, in fact, many feminists want to see being put into practice in their own country, of course.

Feminists also demand/ed to raise the age of consent to basically eliminate competition by very young and more attractive women, when age of consent used to be twelve on average, and is now eighteen almost everywhere (mostly in the US). Though I highly doubt the Vatican will up it from that age, or Spain from thirteen, Germany from fourteen or France from fifteen, and the UK from sixteen, just to please the despotic States shackled and bound by feminist laws, though there seem to be plans to increase it to twenty-one worldwide as it was once in most counties only decades back – all in the name of fascist feminism of course. I doubt it would succeed, but they try anyhow. That would bring women finally back into the ‘little helpless female infants’ bracket these feminists love [them] to inhabit, while I always thought women love to be seen as independent, mature and feisty, and able to take care of themselves, sexually and otherwise. Evidently not. No, it’s to make it all easier for them legally, while men have to provide for them, suffer their laws, their every needs and many times pathetic demands.

Feminists also love to prohibit even creative (or ancient) erotic art, beautifully shot nude photography, even softcore pornography à la Lewis, while of course ‘hardcore’ porn is another matter altogether, all under the guise of ‘protecting’ the porn models (who actually did not ask to be protected and do not really want to go back to any menial jobs). These women (and men) engaging in porn flicks have a clear choice to be in the industry or not, and should not be ‘demoralised’, no matter their ‘reputation’, or ‘acting skills’, might not be the best in the eyes of prudish ‘society’ at large. See Lewis, who was a teenage prostitute and then appeared in only sex flops after Polanski’s more adventurous Pirates and Eddie Murphy’s film. Feminists rallying against such more or less ‘erotic’ films or women really only want to avoid men seeing attractive women naked, have sex, spending time and money on sex, (while not at all being concerned about male-on-male, let alone female-on-female sex movies, obviously) and prohibit female sex dolls, sex robots, you name it. But not vibrators they probable use on themselves, since no man in his right mind would want anything to do with them.

Funny thing is, even some of the successful porn models who were proud of their achievements, sexually uninhibited and happy with the money they made, went to join rising feminism, to suddenly proclaim today that they were raped in their own films. See, ‘Deep Throat’ star Linda Lovelace, who spoke out against pornography, stating that she had been abused and coerced into it all, while others countered her with the term ‘Linda Syndrome’ to refer to women who leave pornography and repudiate their past career by condemning the industry, and, that ‘this was a woman who never took responsibility for her own choices made; but instead blamed everything that happened to her in her life on porn’ – and her drug addiction. And her ‘abusive’ partner. See Lewis – another drug-addled softporn starlet who decried her own actions, blamed them on others. And just so to show how much feminists care for such women, Lovelace also said she felt used by the anti-pornography movement she had joined, and, that so many books written between feminists, mentioning her name, they yet never helped her out financially. They made a few bucks off her, just like everybody else. So much for porn and feminism.

Another ploy by feminists to gain sympathy, is portraying feminists themselves by classifying them as ‘passive victims without responsibility’, prosecuting the war on rape and domestic violence as somehow having been ‘captured’ in the movement and ‘co-opted’ by the law-and-order agendas of politicians, state officials, and conservative groups. Yet, nothing indicates that feminists offered the slightest resistance to this ‘political abduction’, when in fact feminists did lead the charge toward wholesale male incarceration from day one. Feminist ideology has radicalised criminal justice and eroded centuries-old constitutional protections where new ‘crimes’ have now been created; old crimes have been redefined politically; the distinction between crime and private behaviour has been erased, the presumption of innocence has been eliminated, false accusations go unpunished, and patently innocent people are jailed without trial. Great evolution that.

California lawmakers long gave females the right to refuse to testify in alleged rape cases. See Geimer, first accusing him and then copped out to face him. That today is acceptable only when the female submits to DNA testing through use of a certified rape kit administered by a qualified professional with current credentials. DNA testing can reveal mixtures that can be used to identify more than one contributor to the sample. If a female claims rape but refuses to comply with this protocol or waits too long, then she is doubtlessly lying. California is considering legislation that will give females the right to refuse to give testimony in domestic violence cases as well, and therefore ‘domestic violence’ has become easy to claim and hard to refute. The evidence is too easily manufactured and every accused person has the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them. However, there is a new DNA test that detects skin cells left behind from a simple touch. Any female who claims domestic abuse must be required to submit to this new DNA test. If she claims domestic abuse but refuses to comply with its protocol or waits too long, or cannot back it up in any form, then she is most likely lying and should be assessed the greatest penalty allowed by law.

After Charlie Sheen’s wife, Mel Gibson’s ex-lover too has claimed ‘domestic violence’ after they split even bringing the cops into the nasty game already, what a surprise, since it’s, yes, you guessed it, another custody battle ensuing over their illegitimate child, while she has one with ex-Bond Timothy Dalton already. She claims Gibson knocked out her teeth during a ‘violent episode’, claiming she has ‘explosive proof’ of it. I am not a big fan of Gibson mind you for his decades of drunken antics and racial slurs, ‘great artist’ or not, but, now she suddenly comes up with accusations of ‘abuse’ in his case  too, after he slammed a restraining order on her and she slammed one on him, or vice versa, and he does not have to support ‘her’, only their child, (which he did generously after giving her a house and car on top) though she has a job and already another kid from another stupid man. But no, now she demands more ‘child support’, using her offspring as lever, saying, “What he’s doing is cruelty. He is not paying me a penny. Nothing. I have to live on credit cards and borrowed money. There are custody issues. What is happening to me is not fair.”Another whining female, and there I was thinking ‘credit cards’, ‘borrowed money’ and ‘child support’ from others and assets is actual money. Why not ‘actually work’, sweetie – aren’t you a professional musician? Guess not. Professional gold-digger more like.

She’s just another case of a pitiful, aging female taking the easy route by blackmailing the gullible older man into ‘support’ with accusations of violence, after creating another innocent child as ‘shield’ she hopes the courts will uphold in her favour being the ‘female’ of the piece. Gibson has still a lot of money (after his wife was ‘awarded’ half of it after three decades of marriage and seven kids) and that’s all his new ex-lover cares about. Funny how these women always come out suddenly with such ‘allegations’ ‘after’ a custody battle ensued, while no one seems to have noticed any ‘abuse’, when people like her have all  the means to call on official help rather than wash their dirty laundry in the media pool. And get this, now some porn star has not only claimed she had an affair with him while his ex was pregnant, but that he was ‘scary’ and aggressive, tapping right into public awareness of Gibson the racist and foul mouthed drunkard. Sounds just like ex-porn starlet Lewis to me. Though some spell it out seeing that they both are lying, and because we all swear, many are racist and drunks, the majority believe Mel’s accusers simply for his already tainted reputation, and he’ll probably lose out like any other male no matter his financial fortunes. A perfect victim of petty female vengeance.

Women who intentionally defame and then go after men with money should be placed in jail for attempted extortion and slander, and then maybe we would see a lot less older males like him with younger, lazy and famewhoring gold-diggers. This new feminist jurisprudence that supports pathetic women like her, hammers away at some of the most basic foundations of our criminal law system, chief among them is the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Not to feminists though, twisting it into: the presumption of innocence ‘perpetuates’ ‘victim blaming’ in sexual assault cases, unless it’s them in the dock, of course, and then get Scot-free anyhow. Rape hysteria, false accusations, dubious domestic violence claims, distorted scholarship and rigged rape figures are rampant not only on university campuses, which ostensibly exist to pursue truth, saying, ‘if a woman did falsely accuse a man of rape, she may have had reasons to’. Really? So ‘she’ wasn’t raped, clearly lied, but ‘he’ ‘violated’ her in what way exactly? This twisted mentality pervades feminist jurisprudence, precluding innocence by obliterating the distinction between crime and petty ‘hurt female feelings’. All that matters is how she ‘claims’ that she ‘felt’, even when it’s not true at all, with not a second thought to men’s feelings, since they don’t have any, of course.

See Lewis, a woman who is a ‘professional victim’, and ‘victimhood’ is her most powerful tool and ‘role’ to date, blaming an old former lover for her own sad life, when she only needs to look in the mirror to direct her blame more accurately than towards Polanski. In fact, women who play the victim to manipulate and control others by holding them emotionally hostage, shed all responsibility for their own life, caught in a never-ending blame game that will [hopefully] sooner or later backfire brutally. It’s just so easy to call on ‘society’, i.e., ‘laws’, or ‘lawyers’ [like man-basher Allred], when it suits them, in order to avoid personal responsibility and make a big sobbing fuss and mess of it, crying out for mommy or daddy. Everything is feminism-polluted, overtly, underhandedly, infused with ambiguous weasel talk and words, emotional blackmail tactics, where even some harmless remark in an article is seen as misogynist by the editor when no one ever touched on any ‘women’ [issues] at all. But in contrast, you never read anything where it says, oh, that was very misandruous when it comes to ‘honourable man-bashing time’.

Even in the (US) domestic violence sector, ‘violence’ is redefined so loosely by now that it need not be violent at all anymore, where even only swearing at the female constitutes ‘domestic violence’. I wonder what happens if a man accuses his partner of ‘mental abuse’ Lewis claimed in Polanski’s case, while no one can actually back her up either. The US Justice Department definition includes, ‘extreme jealousy and possessiveness’ and, ‘name calling and constant criticising’. Or in other words, a ‘nagging’ wife. For such ‘crimes’ men too are jailed with no trial every single day, but NOT women. Even Gibson isn’t spared, or Sheen, yes, another one Lewis had slept with, who pleaded no contest to ‘assaulting’ his current wife in a drunken brawl it seems to cut it short and faces a month inside, and only Sheen knows if he’s really ‘guilty’. Probably less than he’s made out to be by the disgruntled spouse. Or Gibson, who in fact accused her of being a gold-digging whatsit, no doubt correctly. Funny too how these ‘women’ always get pregnant by only ‘stars’, they later can milk for ‘child support’, or accuse of ‘abuse’, after they in effect had separated on amiable terms. In fact, the very category of ‘domestic violence’ was redeveloped largely to circumvent due process requirements of conventional assault statutes.

A study found that no one accused of domestic violence could be found ‘innocent’, since every arrestee received some sort of ‘punishment’, and that without any real evidence. I.e., make the home a special ground for more injustice done without the slightest proof. Great. Domestic violence has become a murky backwater street of repetitive pseudo-theory, and no other area of established social welfare, criminal justice, public health, or behavioural intervention has such weak evidence in support of mandated practice, i.e., ‘proof’ of ‘guilt’. Scholars and practitioners have repeatedly documented how allegations of ‘abuse’, sexual or otherwise at home, (or at work) are now used for tactical advantage in custody cases and become part of the nasty gamesmanship of divorce. See Gibson, who might well be accused of ‘rape’ or ‘sexual abuse’ by his ex too next. Or Sheen by Lewis for some more ‘sexual abuse of the worst kind’. But he’s in the US, and not a helpless old man[who was] imprisoned in his own home she can accuse. ‘Domestic abuse’ as well has become an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice, and to cry rape, child or spousal abuse in such cases has become daily practice. If you google ‘psychology of rape’, what comes up? ‘Why men rape’, NOT ever why women rape and abuse.

This pernicious practice goes as far as affecting men who mistakenly or even rightfully thought someone had abused or assaulted their children, ending up the very abuser, though there never was any real abuser, or the ‘actual’ abuser got away, and yet only the father was pursued and ended up in prison for nothing, not the mother or actual perpetrator. Another family barbarically destroyed by feminist laws. And better still, some UK Child Protective Services workers regard a male parent bathing his young children (those who cannot bathe themselves or require supervision for their own safety, or during simple bathtime play) as ‘sexual abuse’ offenders now, since by all means they’d need to ‘fondle’ their genitals to cleanse them properly. That [double] standard is not applied to female parents obviously, and if the man is ‘caught’, or was whistled on by someone out of malice, he might even face prison without the slightest defence, and ends up on a sex offender register alongside brutal rapists. I call it legislated insanity directed only at men and fathers.

To quotes someone else: Why do I think you feminists are obsessed with criminalising everything [‘sexual’ or ‘physical’] and only those things that harm their particular, selfish, reproductive and own sexual needs? Because that is all they seem to be interested in; ‘sordid sex’. What about teenage girls bullying and beating each other up on video and then having them uploaded to websites that make money from advertisements? Nah, no sexual threat, therefore nothing to say. What about teenage girls and even children appearing on reality TV shows to be exploited for commercial gain by adults, clearly suffering psychological distress as a result? Nope, no specific sexual threat to their reproductive interests yet so they have probably never given it two seconds thought. What about a teenager who likes to sleep with older men? See Kinski, or Geimer and Lewis. Since these feminists however don’t want their man running off with or even looking at a hot seventeen year old, therefore a thirteen, fifteen or even seventeen year old girl is rendered incapable to give meaningful consent to sex and therefore ALL older men are criminalised in an instant, ONLY. See Polanski and plenty others.

To give an example of ‘purposely victimising’ a ‘female’ by the actual female, and laws themselves mind you; why would it be such a ‘crime’ if some female’s vagina was penetrated by a male’s penis, both in fact designed to accommodate the sexual act that way? Why would she [be forced to] lie about it [to a US grand jury], just because the law didn’t allow her to have underaged sex? Why is she forced to make up a story that in fact painted her as a liar, rather than simply a promiscuous girl interested in healthy sex, in order to render herself the ‘utterly passive partner’, i.e., ‘victim’? And then won’t even be punished for lying? Or say, she was ‘afraid’ of ‘him’ when her overall behaviour, or even witnesses, doesn’t reflect that in any form? See Geimer’s preposterous claim that she was afraid of Polanski, yet didn’t seize the slightest chance to remove herself from his company when she could have, after her mother proudly proclaimed she was very precocious, and then suddenly played this ‘innocent little girl’ clutching a charm. Had she been put on the stand, the defence would have rightly shredded her claims.

And, why in fact say she’s afraid of ‘him’, when she by all means should be ‘afraid’ of falling pregnant? Isn’t it a female’s worst nightmare to become pregnant when having unprotected sex, especially at that age? Why in fact ‘wait’ for Polanski to even ask if she was on the Pill according to her mind you not him, and when she said no, he replied not to come inside her then and resorted to coitus interuptus like any sensible man would? His lawyer called this a solicitous act in fact to avoid her falling pregnant, when he therefore withdrew and ejaculated outside of her. Rapists don’t ever concern themselves with their ‘victim’ to fall pregnant. So, why would she not be ‘afraid’ of getting pregnant? Because she either wanted to become impregnated by him – for whichever dubious reason/s I leave to your imagination – or, because she WAS on the Pill, and played a ‘game’ with him, or else she’d definitely become pregnant by him, or her own boyfriend and others, since I doubt they all used condoms just like Polanski didn’t, (which also points to the fact of a spontaneous sexual act on his part and was nothing premeditated, or else he in fact would have had a handy condom ready) and, in fact he’d have plenty illegitimate children running around, if he wouldn’t either ask and withdraw or use a rubber.

Now, wouldn’t you say it’s therefore mighty peculiar that she gives us this unfounded, ‘I was afraid of him’ scenario the DAs didn’t buy either, while in fact ‘waiting’ to consummate the sex, or, why she didn’t say she’s not on the Pill before Polanski apparently even needed to ask her? Before they even started? I’d been much more ‘concerned’ not to get pregnant, not just ‘let him get on with it’ as she once claimed, which alone doesn’t sound like rape or that she was ‘afraid’ of him, at not the slightest cause or threat to fear ‘him’, but a ‘pregnancy’, and could in fact also be in fact seen as leading him on he took as unspoken consent. She certainly wasn’t unconscious either or incapable to do anything, since for one she heard him say things she however conveniently couldn’t recall but her own words he conversely never heard her or said he had spoken. She only ‘described’ what HE ‘did,’ but nothing SHE had to ‘react’ to he’d in fact needed to force on her to do things in the first place, most of what is clearly fabrication. There’s also no logic in sodomising anyone when withdrawing is general practice, and is just a perfect excuse to accuse him of sodomy which clearly never took place.

Such is a typical scenario of blaming the male from start to finish, play the pathetic ‘female victim’, rather than allow the adolescent to participate actively and admit to the sex. But then again, feminists and conservatives in general are simply jealous that men tend to like and sleep with younger women, and one factor of today’s ultra feminists to view Polanski’s act as objectionable – and I mean sleeping with a pretty minor not raping/sodomising her which was discredited outright by medical evidence – is not only today’s more child protection oriented agendas they subversively try to make their own by vocally calling for his head as the most ‘visible’ target, but a great deal of female jealousy levied against younger/prettier women in general, they pitch [fork] at him now, for being an older man who openly ‘preferred’ younger flesh, for their own ‘fading charms’ and other reasons open for debate. We all know how ‘bitchy’ women can be with each other, but hardly men with other men. On the contrary, they rather ‘fight’ over women and most likely the ‘younger’, ‘prettier’ one.

Many men find themselves younger ‘chicks’ for various reasons, not older women, [or] when coming from any relationship. In fact, even if the man ages, he still might prefer and get the younger ones, widen the age gap even further and in fact stay younger for longer as found in surveys, where older men with younger females stayed more youthful, healthy and lived longer. See Polanski with the stunning beauties half his age the feminist brigade obviously cannot allow, since most of his current detractors are women, using their dubious agendas in order to vilify him and his former desire for casual sex. Men are hardwired to be more attracted to luscious females who are not too far removed from puberty, which would include many females who are under the age of consent. This is most certainly not paedophilia, since they are not interested in ‘children’, i.e., anyone under puberty, but simply normal, human male sexuality that cannot be changed no matter how much these sexually repressed feminists want it.

Truth is, females sexually peak long before males do, see Geimer, yet they’re not allowed to sleep with older men but only their own age group, and that sometimes gets punished, but only the male of course. Many younger females are attracted to older men for many reasons these misandrists dismiss as ‘crushes’, or of course flat-out condemn out of envy. I wonder what these feminists did when they were teens – probably slept around like anyone else had – and now call it ‘rape’. It’s human nature to have sex. All through history and cultures it had been time-honoured and practiced for older men to have younger women, and only today’s times have suddenly gone off kilter in regards to underage sex, or sex in general, especially in the ‘biblically repressed’ US. In fact, it completely backfiring their own ‘women’s lib’ issues by such pathetic overreactions, and enforcing crippling sex laws on people that pointlessly punish ‘age differences’ (and the male predominantly) and sex Europe doesn’t suffer that badly – yet – though we have a growing number of cry rape cases too by now.

So, what about these physicians who examine alleged rape victims? What if they have a hidden ‘feminist’ agenda of their own, since these days hardly a male doctor or nurse would be allowed to look for sexual assault signs with his invasive rape kit. So, what if these women gave false or overblown results? Basically, lied, just so to put away another innocent male out of misled ‘sisterhood loyalty’, or downright malicious spite, able to enforce her misandruous powers as a third party? It happened in the States (of course) only recently again, and many of the cases the woman in question had conducted were in fact being re-examined. The experts promptly found that the nurse concerned had issued ‘erroneous findings and/or substantial ‘overcalling’ of injuries’ in all eleven cases. So, that’s ELEVEN more men innocently sent to prison on her FALSIFIED ‘EVIDENCE’ on top, after some vile cry rape accusers had done enough damage already! US, especially LA, crime laboratories are notorious for falsifying results to obtain [false rape] convictions.

Rape kits typically cost $500–$1,200 the taxpayer has to cough up now while before the victim had to pay for it. Furthermore, as of 2009 most states must pay for so called ‘Jane Doe rape kits’ in order to continue to receive funding under the US Violence Against Women Act. (Though there’s no ‘vigilance against men’ act.) Plus, get this, the ‘Jane Doe’ sexual assault exam kit made available to women anonymously, in effect allows women to have hair, semen and/or other samples from their alleged ‘assailant’ collected and placed in numbered, sealed envelopes. This is done at no charge and without the requirement to notify authorities or press charges, and police do not open the envelope unless the victim decides to press charges. A clinical director for a US rape and sexual assault counselling program said that it is crucial for women to have the option of keeping police away from the case until they are ready to press charges. Sure, true to some extend, but now, in ‘practice’ however, this can be ANY ‘assortment’ of ‘DNA’ collected from ‘anyone’ the ‘victim’ was with (willingly), I repeat, ‘anyone’ the woman might have simply slept with, and later wants to charge with, yes, you guessed it, ‘rape’.

What genuine rape victim would just have ‘evidence’ collected without the vital need for a crime scene investigation done by police? Speak to police at least the next day after the medical exam? And, why would any ‘victim’ be ‘ashamed’ to give her name if a serious assault took place? Traumatised, sure, but ‘unwilling’ to press charges? I’d be incensed and demand my attacker be known to the police, found. And if it was an anonymous assailant I still would come forward for him to be apprehended at one point. There’s no logic in waiting for months let alone years. This way, this ‘service’ is wide open to obvious abuse, since the next problem with the kit is, that ‘Jane Doe’ has decided to blackmail ‘John Doe’ whom she had a relationship with him some years/months/weeks/days before. John Doe did not threaten, and/or rape and/or beat her, but she has the ‘irrefutable’ evidence of his ‘presence’, i.e., ‘DNA’. Unfortunately, that is all she needs to blackmail John Doe, make his life hell. This is where the doctrine of the ‘reasonable person’ might be used to defend against this criminal attempt. Would a ‘reasonable person’ wait months or even years? I think that’s a no. A day, a week if injuries had to be seen to, yes, but if nothing was found and then wait? That surely stinks of cry rape deception. Of course, you can just let it rest, get over it, forget it, and tell someone much later about it, but not press charges that late.

So now that someone’s DNA sits somewhere in a crime lab after some dubious ‘chain of custody’, ‘evidence’ issues already, i.e., whosever DNA that is, he could be implicated in an assault that never was, plus, his DNA might be on record for any other ‘planted crime’. Conversely, after 72 hours it is unlikely that any evidence can be collected with a rape kit and the use of the kit is rendered unsafe to look at ‘real’ evidence. However, new studies have found motile sperm in consensual sexual partners up to 120 hours following sexual intercourse; so accordingly, some sexual assault forensic examination programs have increased the time frame for conducting an examination, i.e., a whole five days. Outside of these windows, it is less likely that evidence would still be present on the survivor. However, evidence may still be gathered by documenting any findings obtained during the medical examination, such as bruises or lacerations, photographs and bite mark impressions etc., (which by all means could all be self-inflicted, or the result from some other ‘encounter’, accident, rough sex play, old injuries, you name it), and securing statements made by the survivor about the alleged assault.

There recently was a case like this here in the UK, where some young women, who thought she was cleverer than all the other false rape accusers, tore off her clothes in ‘strategic places’ to make it look like a violent assault, knocked herself some bruises and a black eye, and then accused three men of violent rape. Now, had it not been for the however even more clever rape kit and other forensic proof that she had made all that up, and none of her ‘injuries’ or ‘violated state’ were consistent with what she had stated, i.e., not even any signs of sexual intercourse, or other evidence of ‘assault’, she’d sent three innocent men into prison for, and get this, for her boy/friend not having given her some money to drive home in a taxi and she had to walk. And, when her girlfriends thought she had left them behind and were angry with her, she later gave them the rape as an excuse, just out of sheer despicable spite against that boy/friend and the others. When she was exposed in court in a flood of crocodile tears, her shocked mother and sister ran from the court in real tears and shame, while the accuser in fact ended up in prison herself – and rightly so – though certainly not long enough with only two months of prison.

What I have noticed reading through such cases is that they all bear strikingly similar scenarios, since there was one just like that in the US, where the man however ended up in prison for four years, and the accuser only got half that after recanting when DNA proof called her a liar. But the best was, in that case her [male] lawyer insisted, ‘that she suffered horrible abandonment and sexual abuse as a young teen, and now has had ‘a spiritual awakening’’. It’s always ‘spiritual’ they become in prison, just so to shift their responsibility on religion on top. Sure, why not blame your past for crying rape ‘today’, years later, while no one sheds a tear over anyone who was fashioned into a rapist during their own childhood for reasons of the same ‘horrible abandonment and/or [sexual] abuse’, mostly by a domineering mother, literally ‘grooming’ the next rapist/murderer in a vicious cycle. Lewis too accused Polanski ‘today’ of ‘abuse’ of ‘then’, rather than blame her negligent mother and all the other men she slept with before and after him. Pathetic. Other cases are about blackmail, where the woman demands money or other things or she’ll call on the law – and several have been found out by now – yet hardly see the inside of any jail either.

People love to underscore any ‘tragic history’ of a female accuser, if real or not, while not giving a shit about Polanski’s own far more traumatic past e.g., when believing that his ‘rape’ should therefore not be excused for his own ‘abused’ past, playing the emotional blackmail card. Because both the news media’s and the law enforcement system’s insistence on treating false rape claims as something other than serious crimes, and in treating false rape accusers as something other than real criminals, they effectively are treated as ‘poor victims’ of their own troubled pasts who need ‘counselling’ and more pandering, not ‘punishment’, while the real rapist, or even falsely accused man, gets punished for his own tragic life to the full extend of the law, and people like Polanski are ridiculed when others point to his own ‘depression’ at the time and that it not be allowed as a ‘mitigating factor’ for his ‘evil deed’. I call it repulsive double standards, since these hypocrites would love to have their own past taken into account if they messed up – or else in fact ALL past experiences of EVERYONE have NO meaning – or in order to mercifully understand or forgive someone. No, it may only be applicable to the [lying] female, hiding behind another handy ‘shield law’.

One way to get around these Rape Shield Laws is for the defence to proffer testimonies of friends of the alleged victim or the accused, claming that the accuser had previously falsely accused another man of raping her. The court however rebuffs such evidence routinely by saying it could ‘inflame the jury’. Yeah, like it actually ‘should’ to rethink? Guess not. An accused stands basically zero chances of any fair defence with this kind of blocking. Some years back another case illustrated that perfectly, where a US sportscaster was accused of assault and battery during a sexual encounter with a woman with whom he had had a ten-year sexual relationship in fact. The man sought to introduce evidence that his accuser, who had been in a mental hospital six weeks before the alleged assault, had previously made false accusations against other men who had left her, as he, who was engaged to be married, was planning to do. His offer of proof was summarily denied, compromising his ability to defend himself. Facing a possible life sentence, he ‘chose’ to plead guilty to misdemeanour assault. I’d say he was forced to – just like Polanski – and still ended up inside a jail for a disgusting female liar.

DNA testing was available only from the 1980’s, but many women object/ed to this testing because they claim/ed that it was ‘unfair to women’. Very handy bullshit feminist ‘logic’. Their problem was really that various applications of DNA testing could reveal the truth about adultery, paternity, rape, and/or domestic violence. Moreover, when the lies of female plaintiffs were exposed, the courts simply altered or destroyed the findings to suit their preconceived perceptions of reality and not the truth. These actions are called material alteration, lies of omission, prevarication, equivocation, and paltering. Same goes when the accuser ‘fails’ or refuses to appear at the criminal trial, which is evidence of their guilt and not that of the falsely accused. See Geimer who refused to be cross-examined or they’d found her out. So nowadays all a girl needs to do is ‘prove’ she had sex (which the DNA can do no problem, even if there was no sex) and then state that she didn’t want the sex, whether that’s the truth or not or if there was any sex, which is all a court needs to convict that male as a rapist/sex offender these days at any rate, and these Jane Doe kits make it even easier.

Don’t get me wrong, for the genuine rape victim who needs a few days to recover before getting the law involved, fine, but a genuine rape victim needs no ‘time’, but help ‘now’, and the police aren’t the only sceptics in this dubious scenario by now. Someone with clear signs of violation needs not wait for months or years to come forward. The most common reason given by victims of rape/sexual assault for reporting the crime to the police, was to prevent further crimes by the offender against them, but, the most common reason cited by the victim for ‘not’ reporting the crime was that it was considered a ‘personal matter’. So, what constitutes a ‘personal mater’? A ‘change of heart’? A ‘fling’? No ‘evidence’? A ‘lie’? Emergency physician reports include stories of adolescent girls who said they were raped to avoid parental punishment for staying overnight with their boyfriends, bingo, someone goes to prison over a teenager’s pathetic, selfish lies. Pretty much as it happened to Polanski. Who would subject themselves to these highly intimate exams, photographing their naked body, cameras inserted vaginally, rectally to record internal damage, put themselves through all of that and hours of investigation, when no rape ever occurred? Only [attention seeking] liars. To give women credit to know the difference between rape and making love has become a game of getting back at her boy/friend, lover, husband, nothing more, since most rape accusers are rather young, and their victims usually not much older.

On the other hand, Geimer didn’t know the difference between anal and vaginal sex, since she all seriously said when the cops asked her about the ‘sodomy’, “Oh, I thought he went in the wrong way.” ‘Thought’? ‘Wrong way’? I’m sure the difference between anal and vaginal intercourse is all too obvious, and there’s no way anyone can mistake vaginal with anal sex. In fact, since she said that, it cannot actually be taken seriously anymore that she stated he ‘flipped her over’ to sodomise her, since she’s not even certain where he went in, and certainly not ‘through her back’, (while in another version she stated that he had entered her anally from the front). It all smells more like the ‘turned’ statement corrupt cop Vannatter had forced on Huston in order to drop the cocaine charges, force her to testify against Polanski, to be in line with what Geimer had said, – i.e., lie in court to say Huston had seen them ‘going at it’ – or vice versa, that he had told Geimer to say she had interrupted them to match her ‘double sodomy’ claims, when Huston clearly hadn’t interrupted them by Polanski’s own admission. You only need to watch Vannatter, and you can see a crooked ex-cop who tried to nail Polanski with more lies. Nothing surprising in LA. I’m sure he was pissed off when they decided on no trial, and let Polanski plead guilty to unlawful sex.

At any rate, according to the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report program, forcible rape is limited to incidents involving female victims only. Meaning, any child or male rape is totally ignored. So much for ‘equality’. The UCR also obtains information from participating agencies on arrests for twenty-one additional categories of crimes. The arrest tallies count arrests for sex offences, including statutory rape and offences against chastity, common decency, and morals. Commercialised vice and prostitution are excluded from this crime category, i.e., prostitution. Forcible rape and sex offences include ‘attempts’. Now, how on Earth can anything like unlawful sex, ‘common decency’ or ‘morals’, or only an ‘attempt’ of ‘rape’, be equal to actual forcible rape? No wonder the [feminists’] ‘rape’ stats are literally screwed.

According to the UCR reports, the numbers of forcible rapes of female victims per 100,000 females in the entire US population were: Year | Rate: 1976 52, 1977 57, 1978 60, 1979 67, 1980 71, 1981 69, 1982 65, 1983 66, 1984 69, 1985 71, 1986 73, 1987 73, 1988 73, 1989 75, 1990 80, 1991 83, 1992 84, 1993 79, 1994 77, 1995 72 -

If ‘that’ in fact can be considered ‘rampant’ female rape, then I don’t now what an ‘epidemic’ is they keep blathering on about, (unless they in fact include child and male rapes making up the bulk). Besides, if anything is considered ‘forcible rape’, most of these numbers aren’t in reality ‘actual rapes’ either. According to the FBI, in 1980 State prisons held 295,819 persons in their custody, of which an estimated 20,500, or 6.9%, had been convicted of rape or sexual assault. (Note: ‘sexual assault’ includes convictions for statutory rape, forcible and non-forcible sodomy, ‘lewd acts’ with children, (i.e., sexual contract with under twelves only), and other conviction offences related to fondling, molestation, or indecent practices. (Which can be anything from frolicking naked in the sun to caressing someone innocently, or actual sex.) The term ‘sex offender’ describes those offenders ‘convicted’ of rape or sexual assault only.) By 1994, the State prison population had increased to 906,112, of which 88,000, or 9.7%, were sex offenders. While the prison population increased 206% over the period, the number of imprisoned ‘sex offenders’ grew 330%. Guess how many of these were for cry rape accusations? The dividing number that made the marked sudden difference – i.e., more than twice the original number of imprisoned men.

Now, ‘rapists’ and ‘sexual assaulters’, as the old UCR called them, serving time in State prisons were less likely to have had a prior conviction history or a history of violence than other incarcerated violent offenders. Meaning, it was either underage/casual/spousal sex, or another cry rape accusation/conviction. Sexual assault offenders were substantially more likely than any other category of offenders to report having experienced physical or sexual abuse while growing up. Meaning, those actual rapists/abusers had an abused childhood background, which it usually is, while two thirds of sexual assault offenders reported that they had never been physically or sexually abused as a child. Meaning, those who had no abused history, are those who had engaged in underage sex, (with overzealous parents who disproved their girl’s sexual activities, or even with her own boyfriend) a casual encounter, or a cry rape accuser of age or not. Sexual assaulters were about three times as likely as all violent offenders, and twice as likely as ‘rapists’ to report that the victim had been a member of their family, i.e., for one in four imprisoned sexual assaulters the victim had been their own child or stepchild of either gender. Meaning, a quarter of these cases were in fact not actual rapes of an adult female, but domestic child abuse (or male rape), while two quarters are underage or teenage sex, with most of the overall ‘victims’ below the age of eighteen and ‘perpetrators’ hardly older. Meaning, the younger the female, the more likely she was genuinely attacked, or indeed cried rape.

Some wishing that hospitals would avoid forcing women to do the kits all must be from another planet, no matter how unpleasant it must be for the real rape victim, but without vital evidence, no case, end of. Though conversely, those who claimed all they did was say ‘no’ and then cry rape, are commonplace by now and a rape kit exam could prove that. Across the US, law enforcement departments report sexual assault cases for reasons such as: delayed reporting, lack of cooperation from the victim, recall of additional facts by the accuser, lack of physical injury, inconsistent or untrue statements by the accuser, a failed or passed polygraph (by the alleged victim and perpetrator respectively), a close relationship between the accuser and the accused, or the sheer difficulty of investigating a case that boils down to the in/famous, ‘he said she said’ scenario. The, ‘she asked for it’ part of the equation constructs women as ‘complicit’ in their own sexual contact due to their ‘innate seductiveness’, ‘sexual looks’ and desires or even sexual depravity the female possesses just as the male. These women are weak-willed and weak-minded, but sexually available and secretly willing, they play, move, dance, speak the sex game and are in locations which invite sexual contact, and sometimes violence, they might not have endured had they played it safe. Same goes for men.

That’s not ‘victim blaming’, no, it’s common sense not to play a risky games let alone sexually, and then tell someone off when the enticed male wants the tempting female. You tell men not to play with fire, and if they get burnt, go na na na na na. But, if a woman falls victim to some unsavoury scenario she could have avoided altogether, only the man is the guilty party even if no rape occurred, or of course, if she really gets raped, or even gang raped. Therefore, ‘rape’ is purely viewed through a gynocentric lens that blinks at the harm it causes innocent men when a devious female played her sexual game and then turns it against the male. It happened often enough, and now the equally unsavoury games of false accusations of rape, and the crime of false reporting, have become so embroiled in the gender-politicised sexual assault milieu that serious discourse about them is not socially acceptable, let alone possible anymore without some feminists launching another misandry attack. Even where false reports are acknowledged as a ‘serious’ problem, innocent men are treated as little more than collateral damage in the larger war of insuring that more women ‘come forward’, raped or not. See the Jane Doe kit.

There’s an old saying that the first version of the story you hear is always very convincing, until you hear the actual truth, or use logic with all possible avenues/evidence investigated objectively to gather the facts. See Geimer’s ‘version’, and then read what really happened, i.e., Polanski’s account, so much more logical and simple. So what about a case of consensual ‘rough’ sex? Or a very small woman and very big man, i.e., big penis that can leave visible vaginal soreness perhaps, or tiny anal fissures, anything that is ‘consistent with ‘rape’’ in the handbook of current sex laws – as minimal an ‘injury’ it might be, then what? She cries rape, and the courts even have ‘evidence’ of ‘violent sex’ that never was non-consensual. Or take a case of BDSM, often leaving very visible marks of rough, but in fact safely conducted, SM play when it’s a professional setting. Or of course, a staged ‘rape fantasy’ – maybe also ending in rough sex, or even tears. I’d say, the man is definitely going down for decades after any of these scenarios if she wants him to for whatever reason/s – despite consensual sex of a more kinky nature both had engaged in and even have a ‘contract’ to play it [out] safe[ly]. You better have independent witnesses for that kind of sexual playground fun, or taped evidence. Sound and vision.

Mike Tyson is a typical case of ‘rough sex’ gone wrong, who ended up in prison many years ago, since his young accuser could hide behind the Rape Shield Laws, in fact only recently known to have cried rape before, in order not to appear ‘loose’ before her father. But of course, because the medical evidence stated ‘consistent with very rough intercourse’, the jury thought it ‘consistent with rape’ because of what she had claimed happened, utterly ignoring what he said had taken place, also forgetting that he was very ‘big’, and she very small, easy to damage genitally, and that rough sex is not rape. But, with his rather crude, unsympathetic ‘boxer’ reputation and arrogant stance in court, while she put on a typical show of the demure little victim, he had no chance either. As expected, all other evidence pointing to another gold-digger who made herself known and a lot of money from her ‘story’, was dismissed. The fact that she was the only ‘rape victim’ of his doesn’t seem to interest anyone either, and that no one only rapes ‘once’, though he was accused of ‘sexual assault’ later too, which was dismissed however. Many unknown men have been accused of rape, and many celebrities ready for the milking, equally powerless to fight liars, and the more ‘controversial’ the artist, the more likely the public will believe the accuser. The ‘people’ will always have even less facts of any case than any jurors, hence blind condemnation on all levels. Voila, another ‘sex offender’.

Even a bunch of harmless streakers for a Halloween run with pumpkins on their heads are now called, yes, you’ve guessed it, ‘sex offenders’, just because they’re ‘naked’. I call it a hilarious idea, others call it amoral banter. And in fact, it’s called [sexual] PC overkill. People need to wake up and realise that we’re living in a sexually oversaturated culture since decades now, and young people have no other compass to follow other than the current ‘standards’ and do what the sexy fashion, sex-infused media, and their peers expects of them, and then wonder why they get hurt. Parents seem to think they can pass off their duties in raising their children to TV and films of all shades, the uncensored internet and then want to blame things like music, overtly sexy clips, violent video games or films, and sex-driven chatrooms for their children’s unsavoury behaviour. It’s the lack of parental involvement that is the problem, not the music, not the websites, not any violent TV or porn films they could just switch off. Parents should be watching what their children are doing, that way they are forced to spending time together and maybe they will actually bond in a way they should, and not unwittingly shape them into sexual repressed predators when they can’t jerk off in front of a porn movie.

And most of all, people should quit sexualising females, especially the young ones, in magazines, TV ads, fashion, films, anywhere, rewarding these same women for being sexual objects they otherwise decry being seen as, and QUIT blaming the men for these women being sexually active, no matter their age. Or punish them BOTH with anti-sex laws, not only the male. The radical feminists invented the ‘he said she said’ scenario to diminish the importance of [female] responsibility, the essential truth, while accentuating the believability of a female’s lie. In a false allegation of rape, the female complainant decides to proceed because she thought it would be her word against a male’s, because there was no proof to the contrary. It doesn’t take months or years for any person to decide that they have been raped, unless they are planning a crime. The radical feminists do not want the proof to become known if it is not in their favour. So, if a man said that he did not have sex with a particular woman, and she said that he did, then she would have to be, and must be, absolutely believed without any vital proof. No, that’s not how accountability and justice works, except in a skewed feminist’s world.

One of the most deluded remarks I’ve ever come across coming from a feminist’s lips, is this lunacy, and I’ll quote part from another blogger having posted it: “I concede that a tiny, inconsequential fraction of rape accusations are false. (‘Inconsequential’? Tell that the hundreds and thousand of innocent men behind bars!) But I also won’t be alone in a room with a man that goes on and on about false rape accusations. Said obsession indicates ulterior motives.” So, what ‘she’ appears to be saying in the blasé tonality of an ‘urban sophisticate’, that, any man who will not be silent about false rape accusations is a potential rapist? And not only a ‘potential’ rapist, but a ‘probable’ one too. Notice her exact wording: “Said obsession indicates ulterior motives.” Notice that she does not soften that phrase with modifiers? She does not inform us that said ‘obsession’ only ‘might’ indicate ‘ulterior motives’, that it only ‘implies’ or ‘hints’ at such ‘motives’, or that she only ‘feels’ that it so ‘implies’ or ‘hints’. No, she lays her position down in blunt, unequivocally factual terms. There is naught else to be inferred, but that any man who is ‘obsessed’ with the issue of false rape accusation has ‘ulterior motives’ — not ‘might’ have, but HAS.

Feminists have long used weasel words and sentences like this, applied clever ‘psychological’ tactics, that make the reader/listener believe their words as irrefutable fact. For she does not directly tell us what she means by ‘ulterior motives’, but embeds this in a context that leaves almost no room for any interpretation but to arrive at the man being a potential rapist. Such a man’s ostensible ‘motive’ might be political, but according to feminists his ‘ulterior motive’ is ‘personal’. How very like a deluded, self-cantered feminist, to amalgamate the personal with the political. So in plain English, why else would ‘she’ not be alone in a room with such a man? Does she mean to say, that if you are a man who ‘goes on and on’ about false rape accusations, then she expects that you would have the ulterior motive of raping her? I personally would not want to be alone in a room with any feminist because I think she would harbour the same ‘ulterior motive’ of falsely accusing me, and would gladly see me go to prison. Such women would do exactly that – since they don’t care shit about any other false rape accuser doing the same. These women are psychos, and all those who need to play out a rape scenario that hasn’t even occurred yet in order to become the ‘helpless victim’. It’s called demented masochism.

Another marked personality disorder of the feminist species, is ‘projection’, i.e., the attribution of ones own ideas, feelings or attitudes of blame or guilt toward other people, and this is called the wilful externalisation of [their] guilt. Conscious projection is usually a lie that reveals the [real] intent of the guilty, or responsibility as a defence against guilt. So in that sense, projection is related to denial. In any relationship, projection can be a ruse to hide one’s own act/s of violence, dishonesty, and/or moral turpitude. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the subconscious impulses or desires. Psychological projection is a defence mechanism where a person attributes their own bad behaviours to others without letting the conscious mind recognise them. (Or to expect others to lie or steal e.g. just because they do all the time.) See Lewis, a classic case of projection culminating in her ‘abuse’ lies. That ‘secret abuse fantasy’ she talked of she had dreamt about before her first nude flick, coupled with the typical smear campaign attempt by LA courts using this drug-addled ex-prostitute to influence the already unsound extradition. Radical feminists however would refer to this as ‘blaming the victim’, but the problem is, who is the actual victim? Polanski.

Polanski could have solved this entire problem in 1977 already, i.e., had his defence lawyer forced a trial on his behalf, or had his accuser simply been truthful and not lied to the grand jury panel who then decided to indict him on her vague claims. A guilty person avoids cross-examination in a trial, Polanski in fact wanted, but by Geimer’s failure to appear to stand trial and face her accused, under those circumstances his attorney would have found her guilty of perjury in nil time and entered Polanski into a judicial declaration of factual innocence, or of course, that fatal plea deal since she was underage. Unfortunately, the radical feminists would have said that this sensible action to tell the truth would have been ‘unfair’ to the young female, after she had sex with him. But mom told her to lie or had fallen for her lies already, and then mom decided to cry rape for her daughter Geimer in fact did not want, and that was that. Numerous defence attorneys testified that they allow and even encourage their clients to plea to a minor charge even when they are certain of the client’s innocence in order to avoid a trial. See Polanski, who had to plead just because she was underage.

Courts are not in the role of finding the truth, they are in the business of placating the radical feminists, or rather ‘helpless female’ scenario, and therefore men have to plead guilty to some ‘deal’, if accountable or not, or are sent inside to face more violation. No wonder Polanski said enough is enough and showed the LA courts the finger after he had done his time, and some pompous old media-junkie judge (who in fact had sex with jail bait too while being in his fifties, and when he was in his seventies held Polanski to his own brand of ‘justice’ and ‘morale’) thought it fun to send him back for another round of punishment, (while having his own barely age of consent partner at that time). And, DAs are even less in the business of addressing the facts, but twisting and turning things, who, on the one hand let real rapists or murderers get off on some technicality, or ‘expert witness’ statements tweaking science facts some more, able to make some brutal rape or assault look like the victim in question took active part in it even while unconscious despite actual physical evidence/injuries, while on the other hand some false rape accuser crying rape/sodomy gets equally away without the slightest signs of any violation or even casual ‘intercourse’.

Polanski himself once said many decades ago in an interview (for Playboy in December 1971) in regards to this rising ‘women’s movement’: “Anyone with a civilised mind endorsed the concept of equal pay for equal results long before women’s lib (aka ‘feminism’) and I endorse that concept. The problem is, women’s lib wants equal ‘pay’ for equal ‘work’. What if the ‘results’ are not the same? What if the man is better at his job? He should be paid more. And vice versa.” Quite – he also said, “The basic premise of women’s lib is that they [think they] are in some kind of slavery or subservient position, where even the name implies that they’re enslaved. Well, this premise sounds absurd to me, because sex (i.e., ‘gender’ the feminists don’t recognise anymore) isn’t a socials class, it divides humanity horizontally, (i.e., while having sex) not vertically. The women’s libbers argue that they weren’t given equal opportunities, but what I want to know is, what were they doing when these opportunities were given? Were they passed out one fine day? Or did it happen that men have dominated women for centuries because they were superior in the areas necessary in order to survive as a species?” Clever chap.

“I give women total freedom to come and go as they please, and I don’t make them do what they don’t want. I love women, I really do, as people, and I love bright women.” Sharon was very intelligent but not in the business to brag about it to ‘compete with men’, (or other women, but she would never be pushy about her intelligence in order to show people how clever she is). He said: “I rarely find an intelligent female companion with whom I can get along, for the reason that most women who are smart try to compete with the man. I’m charmed by the fact that there are women with whom you can discuss the molecular theory of light all evening, but there is nothing more enjoyable than a genuinely brilliant female companion who doesn’t turn the relationship into a contest of [gender] egos.” And he touched on the ‘game’, some women play, as in, and I quote: “Let’s say I meet a girl, and she tries to give me the impression that she desires to go to bed with me that same evening, although I can sense that it’s not her intention. That’s what I call ‘games’, and it lasts for about ten minutes. Then I simply lose interest. I don’t mind if she doesn’t want to have sexual relations with me, as long as she states it clearly by her behaviour.” Meaning, he would never force sex like any sensible man wouldn’t, especially if she said ‘no’.

Now, would you say he sounds more sensible and sensitive towards ‘womankind’ than these hardcore feminists that hate wo/men? I say that’s a BIG YES. Problem is, there are enough women out there today as then who give up mixed signals, play that ‘game’, (and to say that’s a myth is another feminist fabrication when that’s all but historical fact) or say one thing, then another, go back to whichever version, resulting in inevitable confusion ensuing for both, and then cry rape. So in that sense, Geimer certainly never made it clear through her ‘behaviour’ as I had analysed in-depth on my other blogs already, (or Lewis, who even had a six-months long affair with him), which is where the convenient ‘I said no’ lie comes in the feminists invented to nullify their/her own actions, since Geimer clearly never removed herself from his company at any given stage perfectly able to do so, really told him off, or even once half-heatedly showed ‘some resistance’ after that first kiss or caress. THAT had been a clear ‘sign’. Had she really said ‘no’, he’d let her be just the same, but she went with him, moved through the house and then had sex with him, and there never was any need to force himself on anyone with the next female waiting to share more sex with him never short of offers.

But, if women want to proclaim their ‘professional enslavement’, sexually, despite having sex as they like it with whom they like it, socially, despite the fact that they get every possible recognition in every public/political/domestic sector, financially, despite the fact that many have highly paid jobs, or the man supports them anyhow, or even earn more than men sometimes, let them. Let them play the pitiable, powerless little female, who think they need to be legally rendered impotent, or to ‘compete’ with men, or dominate males, rather than actually ‘be’ equal to men, i.e., ‘empowered’ as ‘females’, outside their biological differences not even they can change, no matter how much they’d like to alter their ‘gender’ to become more like men – ‘masculine’. Feminism is an oppressive confederacy of fear, panic and hysteria, driving both the criminalisation of the innocent and the criminality of the guilty. We will continue to fight a losing battle against sex crimes, wrong incarceration, and expanding government power until we confront the sexual ideology that is driving not only family breakdown and the ensuing social anomie, but the criminalisation of the male population per se.

We’re already there, and evermore repressive (mainly US) penal measures will only further erode sexual freedom that has reached already utterly repressed status, where ALL sex is vilified and punished with terrible results. Conservatives and moralists must rethink their approach to ‘crime’ in general and punishment and their unwitting collusion with America’s homegrown (anti-sex) feminists. That includes a vast number of false rape claims having started to erode other countries’ law and order systems too, seeing just how easy it is in the States. It’s no accident that the US has draconian anti-sex laws and sentences for the most minor offences and boasts the highest prison population in the world. The goal is to establish a slave state, manufacture criminals out of ordinary citizens by re/cycling them through multi-billion slave gulags for life. They also make very cheap workforces in prison – and I guarantee you, every single number plate in the US was made by an inmate – who might just have been raped, or is innocent of any crime to begin with.

With headlines like, ‘the horrors of widespread rape and abuse may only have started with sodomy, rape, oral copulation’, the press by and large goes along fuelling such prurient ‘obsessions’ it with more lies. Though in the UK these cases hardly end up with the innocent man incarcerated in prison for decades, ‘yet’, he however still has to endure months or even years of proceedings and jail time to finally see him freed leading to inevitable destruction of his life nonetheless through public exposure and economic disaster. Feminism was once a theory that embraced political, economic, social and sexual equality without regard to gender. However, feminism is now redefined by women who have embraced Fascism, a political movement that places self-invented ideology above the individual. This movement is lead by a dictatorial clique of women who have embraced their own self-conceived and self-obsessed notions of feminist superiority. The fascist movements of the past tried selective genocide and the fascist feminists of today are engaged in selective ‘gendercide’. The problem is, law enforcement agencies, DAs and judges have become the dupes and lackeys of these radical feminists.

The (US) Centre for Military Readiness of all sources says: ‘false rape accusations have been filed to extort money from celebrities, to gain sole custody of children in divorce cases, and even to escape military deployments to war zones’ – while all men have to be ready to be drafted or be fined, unlike even ONE female. With more and more innocent men ending up in prison, rape occurring there is usually not a onetime horror event, no, it’s often yearlong sex slavery, multiple hour long gang rape, comparable only to in/famous sex abuse cases like that of American Gerrido. Or Austrian Fritzl, who had locked up his daughter for over two decades, viciously raped her almost very day and yet she could move on after a mere year of therapy once freed, while some pathetic ‘cry rape victim’ moans about consensual sex. Any such atrocities done to a woman is relatively rare no matter what feminists proclaim, or even to a onetime brutal rape of a female, who might want to be ‘pitied without end’ in contrast, while a man being tortured in prison can equally never escape his ordeal being a daily occurrence, locked in a vicious cycle of horrendous abuse.

Still, no reactions from feminist who instead worry that consensual sex with an underage girl and an older man is oh so heinous rape and that expensive luxury, or even cheap, drug addled prostitutes are victim of rape, yet call for no one to get these teens off the streets and the ‘economic’ teenage prostitute some help. Teens like Lewis, who were enabled to cry abuse decades later out of feminist spite for a mother who didn’t care about what her draughter was up to, or of course more likely, the teenager simply lied to her single parent, played her like she played her older clients she then later swapped for rich Hollywood artists. While America’s criminalisation may have a number of contributing causes, it coincides precisely with the rise of organised feminism. This highly contentious women’s movement became a vanguard of conservative ‘law-and-order’ politics, and women’s organisations played a central role in the consolidation of this conservative ‘victims’ rights’ movement that emerged in the 1970s. To which Polanski fell the most in/famous victim by now.

But, unlike Geimer, who no doubt regretted her teenage fantasies and tried to make good on it, (utterly pointlessly of course, since the law today is even more corrupt/ed than then and the LA DAs of today clearly don’t care what she wants, since it for one would exculpate her once accused director of ‘rape’ more clearly and fully) Lewis on the other hand is nothing more than an ugly Hollywood has-been, a former teen prostitute-come-‘model’-come-softcore-porn-‘actress’-come-drug-addict-come-cry-rape-accuser of the worst kind, a malicious and deluded attention-seeking fantasist, with perhaps an ‘excessive libido’ and mental problems based on reasons unknown that most certainly have NOTHING to do with Polanski, living in her ‘sexual abuse’ fantasy world that has little basis in actual truth.

Lewis and her sleazeball ‘attorney’ are pathetic women who have too much legal power over men, and the judicial system is all too ready to encourage them to be/come the poor, defenceless ‘victims’ of oh so abusive men, after SHE kept prostituting herself on her own free will and Allred claims to have been the victim of ‘rape’ in her youth. Maybe these fantasts should in fact ask a real rape victim or sexual abuse survivor to know what real rape or abuse is, male and female, and not promenade like cheap whores before the world press to declare some older film director had sexually manipulated and abused his own partner decades ago, in a sad show of clear fabrications US/Hollywood style. One could almost wish they would be really raped to know better, both a clear insult to any genuine rape victim, crying for pathetic attention like that. Good the majority in fact still don’t believe her pathetic lies for whatever reasons.

While the Polanski case was boiling hot to renewed world attention to scold him some more, a very successful Californian DA of all people who prosecuted sex cases of all things was accused of, yes, rape, oral copulation, sodomy, anything under the sun in multiple counts two years back now by a female colleague, after they had very rough sex everyone knew they’re into, and that after five months of ‘waiting’, no evidence, no proof, nothing to back her up. Including the old, he ‘lured’ her into a sex trap tactic by the prosecution. (Just like Polanski’s original prosecutor tried to apply, while he now tries even harder to see him freed.) But guess what? The DA’s career is dead while his accuser was transferred to another county under the shield of her female anonymity. The fact that he committed adultery doesn’t speak in his favour, but now he faces years in prison despite not the slightest corroboration of any violation or even any accuser facing him in court, and he of all people knows the system, the right people, has his own counsel, and he’s still as helpless as anyone else accused of rape. What chances do men like Polanski stand, or any other unknown victim? ZERO.

On the one hand DAs have too much power to mis/handle a case the way they like [to bungle] it, play god with the defendant, and on the other hand they’re trapped by their own laws these feminists have imposed on them. Prosecutors routinely convict innocent people for self-gratification, higher social status and money, after drawing it out endlessly and still see the man behind bars. I wonder how these people can sleep at night, but then again, they have no conscience to plague them. Judges and attorneys should treat litigants with civility and respect, not contempt and ‘guilty until proven innocent’ attitudes. Trials are supposed to reveal the truth, but many lawyers seek to hide the truth through theatrics, finger pointing, shouting, brow beating, berating, deception, and manipulation. Withholding evidence is a fact. Falsifying records by judges and attorneys is a fact. Maybe sooner or later men will finally wake up, seeing their own being systematically abused by their own lawmakers, already standing by to sign another false rape or sexual abuse statement, endorsing more injustice done, and while you read this, another man was just sent into hell, and another innocent man raped another man.

All in the name of cry rape junkies like Lewis and ‘women’ like Allred, who care nothing about justice, but money and fame to buy another posh dress to parade her next ‘client’ in front of the other media whores. Or even Geimer, who should have the guts and come fully clean finally after she has done so in little ways already, tried to help end the nightmare. But not hard enough, and her campaigning to see Polanski freed is as futile as his own attempts to have the case dropped or the plenty judicial transgressions litigated. I’m sure they can arrange another handy ‘plea bargain’ for her to avoid perjury charges landing her in prison, [for] being a woman. Not even a real ‘victim’ means anything to any of them, let alone someone like Geimer openly petitioning for her once accused, even saying that the 42 days at Chino were ‘excessive’. I doubt any genuine rape victim would ever do  so, or dismiss the events as blown out of all proportion, ignoring decades of public demonisation and media humiliation she had initiated. Or her mother by ignoring her wishes not to get the law involved. I bet you, if shove came to push, women like Lewis and Allred would be the first ones to spread their legs to get where they wanted. As seen with their dubious ‘careers’. No wonder they invented the word whore.

Geimer at least had some decency and publicly declared in 2000 that Polanski never harmed her, forced her, was forceful or mean with her. Problem is, hardly anyone knows about that, too busy spreading more slander and lies as if they get paid for it. Like the media. Once Geimer was asked if she would call on the law if her daughter ‘cried rape’, (unless forcible rape was evident of course) and she said, ‘no’, though she only has three boys, all in their early twenties and one is at least thirty by now. So, does that mean she got wise? Or doesn’t trust the law? Or any female’s accusations? Remembers what damage it did to Polanski? Or, simply because she’s afraid that one of her sons might be done for statutory rape, or become a victim of someone like herself? A false rape accuser? Her son/s would have zero chances like everyone else in proving that the accuser lied. One could almost wish she’d have to deal with that one day, and her mother – from that angle: the condemned accused. Maybe that would wake her up finally, to come clean.

One more ridiculous but equally devastating case came to light here in the UK, or Ireland to be precise. Last year, some sixteen year old boy slept with his sixteen year old girlfriend a second time. But, after the girl’s father didn’t like the boy anymore for some reason, he called the law on him while they were intimate, and guess what, now the boy looks at custodial time, yes, hard prison, for sex! And, despite the fact that BOTH were of the age of consent! BUT, according to a ‘new law’, based on a ancient law, i.e., conehead Cromwell’s time, and, after the law was ‘carefully’ and ‘deliberately’ re/defined by our lawmakers in 2006, thus having made it illegal for any person under seventeen to have sex with another person under seventeen! Proudly adding: ‘a female ‘child’ under the age of seventeen shall not be guilty of an offence under this Act by reason ‘only’ of her engaging in an act of sexual intercourse’ – meaning, ONLY THE MALE is ‘guilty’ of the sex! How’s that for ‘equality! And, ‘female child’? Gee, one day any woman under twenty-one is considered a freaking ‘child’ – so much for equality to the male species and empowering females, hooray!

Sometimes I think the feminists have invented feminism only in order to render all women infants so they can moan about it, go on about it, shed all responsibilities, hence, need/ed to ‘liberate’ themselves from such imaginary oppression. No wonder men rightly call extremist feminists, ‘Feminazis’, which apparently first appeared in dictionaries in 1989. The term ‘Feminazi’ refers to an extremist, militant, aggressive feminist who is harsh, domineering, and dictatorial. (Like your average abusive [female] house dragon basically.) The doctrine of the Feminazis includes practices and policies of extreme transformation without accepting the consequences of their misinformation, detrimental changes, and/or damaging lies. For an example, the term misogyny originally meant ‘hate the queen’ referring to the excesses of Queen Mary the First (‘Bloody Mary’) and not the ‘hatred of women’ as claimed by these Feminazis. Or of course redefining words like, ‘victim’, ‘crime’, ‘rape’, ‘child’.

Some years ago, a US newspaper printed a highly misandruous (or rather preposterous) article about ‘spousal abuse’, describing the ‘relationship’ between ‘heartbeat and blood pressure’. Now, get this, if a man’s heartbeat was slow, normal, or high then he abuses women. If his blood pressure was low, normal, or high then he abuses women. And best of all, if there was zero heartbeat or blood pressure, he still abuses women, though technically he was in fact, dead! In other words, no one could pass that ‘test’ and is an example of ridiculous pseudo science, a system of frivolous theories and idiotic fabrications that are neither scientific nor true. It’s like believing in real witches, who then of course were hunted by the male Inquisition while being as innocent as can be. This damaging right to lie by inventing such headshaking nonsense and creating false statistics, has become the cornerstone of the Feminazi conspiracy. And it sounds very much like the Rape Trauma Symptoms manual, where every mental state of a woman can be interpreted as having been raped. I call it the need for a lobotomy.

Women have fought for ‘equality’ for years, and now we have long passed the point where NO equality exists anymore, with women taking up all these feminist ‘rights’ to be ‘equal’ to men, but in reality have now become man’s vicious ‘dominator’ who can get away with crimes for their gender on top, rather than be ‘equal’ in life and in the eyes of the law and are punished accordingly. Many men, women, boys and girls are being abused by only women every day, and because of society’s equally erroneous belief that women don’t ‘abuse’ the way men do, they get away with their own heinous crimes. The fact that women are in the minority in regards to ‘rape’, violent or otherwise, but in the majority of sexual abuse, this Polanski case however is no longer about any ‘sex with a minor’, but a highly politicised, and most of all feminists battleground who hijacked it for their own anti-male agendas having forced these horrible US anti-sex and ‘shield’ laws on men some forty years ago Polanski fell victim to, using today’s ‘child protection’ issues as a means to vilify all men and victimise him some more in the go.

It’s about time we had laws that not only prosecuted men for ‘rape’, but prosecuted women as well with no chance to hide behind any ‘Rape Shield Laws’. Let’s face it, if the feminista had their way, they would ban all soft and of course hardcore pornography, even harmless erotica or nude photography of even adult women, (but not male nudity of course) raise the [sexual] age of consent to twenty-one at least, and define it as paedophilia, or ‘visual rape’, for a man to even look at any woman below this age let alone touch her innocently. I fail to see how this, in any way, is constructive or beneficial to women. Conversely, it is highly damaging to men, to women, to children and to society as a whole. As an example, if a man needed to wait to sleep with his girlfriend for years because the state says ‘no’, yet both could say ‘yes’ long before that, he might just as well go out there and really rape someone, (or get himself an older woman, or even prostitute) if he doesn’t even have at least some porn to get off on before that. Or his girlfriend for that matter.

I would rather argue that, as in violent depictions on screen, porn serves as a catalyst, a means of ‘passive release’, not to ‘actively’ act on it, since most people would ‘react’ against such violence, or sexual violence, not feel enticed by and to act it out. If someone does, he’d done it anyway – they don’t need any ‘media triggers’ – or else we’d not have had any violence before the dawn of films and porn, nude magazines or even aggressive music. Studies have shown a correlation between access to (acted) pornography and the numbers of actual rapes across many areas, which in essence means, people who find release in legal pornography are less likely to build up the sexual tension and desires to commit to something such as rape. Masturbation falls into that field, since it’s the safest and to many the more satisfying sex per se. Since these feminists therefore have lost their battle over pornography, (but don’t care about any ‘violence’) that their claims were shown to be wrong, and the advent of the internet, which gave everyone access to huge amounts of pornography for free, meant that their mean-spirited and misguided dream of banning it had disappeared forever.

Child pornography on the other hand, is an issue about which everyone can agree. Therefore, the misandrist propaganda has switched from the claim that all men are rapists, to the claim that all men are ‘child rapists’. I.e., mis/use child abuse issues for their own agendas too now, jumping on the paedophilia bandwagon running off track by now. See Polanski, who came from being a ‘simple rapist’ to becoming a ‘child rapist/paedophile’ monster predator suddenly. Their message, however, has remained the same; that all men are evil, and that male sexuality is essentially violent and coercive. Also, because they however are limiting pornography that depicts women who only appear to be minors, i.e., flat-chested, or slim Asian girls, they’re removing that ‘release’ from actual paedophiles who therefore seek online and/or true child abuse depiction/action. Hence, because these paedophiles do not get the adequate release they seek from legal pornographic materials, they may be more prone to seek that release from actual children.

What these brainless feminists are in fact doing, is bringing actually more endangerment to actual women and children on the streets and into the homes of any country in a twisted turn. So, which is more important? Not letting ‘adult’ women consent to sexual activities on or off film because people ‘might’ be offended by, or the sex, or the way they look, or the safety of children? What about teenagers that look like adult women? There are plenty of females aged thirteen to eighteen that look like they’re in their twenties. Not only for how they dress and behave, but there’re taller, larger breasted, fully developed; see Geimer and Lewis, both once very luscious, exotic, attractive and desirable in their own ways. So, the decision to ban the depiction of smaller proportioned women in any medium, because they may resemble a minor, does nothing more than feign morals and cause even further endangerment. A FACT I’m sure these feminists would never recognise.

Which brings me to a more serious case from Ireland, where the court heard harrowing evidence of how a woman had forced one son to have sex with her when he was just thirteen years old and she was thirty-six. Now, apart from this being a case of years of appalling child neglect, criminal repeat incest and clearly rape, she got, what? Under the current Act, a man coming before the court on this charge would face life in prison, but, the maximum sentence for a woman was, yes, a mere seven years for all of it, so much for equality before the law even in the UK! And better still, when men like Polanski engage in consensual sex albeit once equally ‘unlawful sex with a minor’, the words ‘child rape’ and of course ‘child rapist’ are used by both the media and the law, but not for a ‘woman’, oh no, and he could have looked at a whopping fifty years for casual sex (no matter the attorneys did not demand any prison time knowing it was not actual rape.)

Also, they love calling him a ‘sexual predator’ – just for sleeping with many females, of which only a few were ‘very young’ contrary to popular belief while he was older – but oddly enough, no one else very promiscuous was or is called a predator. No, they were/are called ‘playboys’, not ‘paedophiles’. So, why aren’t women called the same? Usually it’s whore or suchlike, which probably is more to the fact in many cases, but, why not call them sexual predators too then? They want ‘equality’, so let’s call non-professional prostitutes and overtly libidinous women like Lewis sexual predators too, since she proudly declared SHE had seduced every single man, including ‘kinky’ Polanski. Men have to endure this kind of name-calling, while women are called ‘sexually liberated’, ‘explorative’, not, ‘being sexually irresponsible’ or ‘manipulative’,  as they call men who sleep around, while they think women as only ‘sexually experimenting’, or ‘learning’. No, when it comes to women, all these descriptions of female ‘sexual conduct’ or ‘sex crimes’ are toned down suddenly, while men are called ‘sex offenders’ or worse. I call it double standards.

And here’s something equally utterly unbelievable: a twenty year old young woman wanted a seventeen year old boy to use a condom but he didn’t have one, so they had sex without. She then reported the encounter as, yes you guessed it, ‘rape’, since she obviously had ‘semen proof’. Though this woman can say no to unprotected sex and was quite sensible insisting that he wore a condom, and the boy was just of age, but, to do it anyhow and later cry rape however is simply criminal. If that had not happened in England, and no charges were pressed, in the US males like him had been sent down and straight into hell for years of terrible abuse, since the younger an inmate, prettier, helpless or feminine, the more likely he falls victim to rape and longterm sexual abuse to become someone’s ‘bitch’. Rape accusations like this are a malicious form of personal vendetta aided by social/legal control women exercise over boys/men, mis/using the police and judiciary system as unwitting thugs condoning worse crimes committed against the defenceless defendant. This is wrong on so many levels, but, the age of the feminist lunacy is only just beginning, and it’s about time men wake up to this. Or real women.

Now, the other day there was the BBC headline: July 4th, 2010 – Man raped in Ipswich parkland – which obviously caught my attention. But all it says is this: ‘A 21-year-old man has been arrested after a man was raped in parkland in Ipswich (Suffolk, England). The attack on a man in his 20s happened in the early hours of the morning at the Alderman Road recreation ground. Police have arrested a man from Ipswich on suspicion of rape. He is currently in custody at Ipswich Police Station where he will be questioned. An area of the recreation ground has been cordoned off while officers carry out inquiries in the afternoon’. Though it isn’t much to read, but just so to alert other men that this happened in their area, the UK also never releases the ‘victim’s’ name, and the alleged assailant in this case is not named either – anymore – since we have changed the law that all accused remain anonymous too, which seems to be implemented permanently now and also regardless of gender. Unless this is a one-off where the attacker was not named, I’m waiting for another case of a woman having been attacked to see if the assailant will also not be named – anymore. Of course, it is better for neither to be named, and this young man obviously went to the police and the attack was deemed as genuine, so it is possible to keep both identities undisclosed. Just not in the feminism pervaded US.

Feminists do NOT really oppose ‘rape’ at any rate, since they think that male-on-male rape is funny in contrast. It’s a joke when a man – who essentially is not designed to be penetrated at all – is penetrated sexually without his permission if they might be into anal sex. It’s a crime worse than murder when a woman – who is at least anatomically designed to accommodate a penis inside of her – is penetrated sexually without her permission. It’s a crime, sure, but certainly not worse than murder or many other ‘physical’ crimes. Male rape is just as barbaric and the most underreported felony in America, yet our society treats it like a joke. This shows that these women are incapable of administering justice in an equitable manner. Most men are physically stronger, true, so, if feminists can control men with backing from the [male] state, to remove that physical difference, then men and women will be ‘equal’ in their logic. That’s their ultimate goal: to neuter male strength on a physical level, since ‘power’ is in the hands of [too] many [unqualified] women already. Because [most] women aren’t as strong, it’s only fair that men not be allowed to use their strength or even threaten using it, yet demand a ‘strong hand’ or ‘real man’ when they need it. These women have pitted men against the men since decades now, and men are stupid enough to let them!

But, make no mistake, ‘women’ are not the enemy, no, they are being used by these feminists alike to create class division between men and women, to divide and conquer us both, as the principal means to usurp and rule our people. Women will defer to their innate or instructed promise of entitlement to their needs, men to the needs of women and us both to the state and working industry who will increasingly dictate the terms of our sacred bond, sexual or otherwise. We must both fight the tyranny of feminism, not ‘women’, and the men who allow them to continue and endorse atrocities done to their own. Obviously not in a vigilante style as they do it, but by forcing them to rethink these laws and the damaging power these women have over the system, Feminism, despite all its ranting on about empowerment and equality, has achieved the exact opposite by very effectively reducing women to the status of, yes, ‘children’.

However, I’ve noticed that ‘children’ are often held to a higher standard of accountability than grown women or ‘little girls’, no matter their actual age, and of course men when it comes to ‘punishment’. But, we must not criticise, we must not condemn, we must never question any ‘female’. Even if we’re talking about something as horrific as the murder of infants by the perverted hands of a ‘mother’ that was rampant only last decade in France, of which none of these clearly mentally disturbed serial killers ended up in prison of course, but ‘therapy’ at most for some other fictitious ‘symptom’ called ‘pregnancy denial’. How about a father, who’s in ‘fatherhood denial’, killed his infant he didn’t ‘want’ anymore? No, he gets life for murder or decades for manslaughter, no matter his own ‘mental state’.

And, there have been gruesome cases in the States some decades back, where young boys were found violently sodomised with objects like branches not meant to go where they were inserted by a serial rapist/killer, tortured and murdered in appalling fashions, but because the ignorant press named them ‘dead gay boys’, indicating that, just because they had been violated anally, they ‘must’ be ‘gay’, rather than just terribly violated ‘boys’ picked at random, with none of the victims ever even thinking of becoming ‘gay’, let alone were at that very young prepubescent age. Terribly prejudiced ignorance and insult I call it. No one gave a shit about their horrid ordeals bar the distraught families, while any case of a female having been found raped or killed, no matter their age, they’d engage in nationwide manhunts treating them with special ‘tact’ and ‘care’. So much for ‘equality’ before the law, or even in death. Same goes for poor or rich ‘victims’, coloured or white, known or unknown, and instantly no one cares anymore when it’s a poor black chap ending up a victim of a violent sex crime. I call it despicable dehumanisation on a gender/race/status basis.

Now, believe or not, some radical Feminazis (I also refuse to name on my blog not to soil it) have come up with these most perverted rantings (I’m sure people who know them will recognise who said what):

“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” So in that case all women were raped, are raped  and will be raped every day and night, and all men are rapists. Right, what loony bin did that one escape from again?

“Marriage is an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership.” *shakes head at a total loss for words over that mind-boggling bullshit*

“Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalised expression of contempt for women’s bodies.” Wow, and there I was thinking it’s an expression of lust and love, affections and in fact procreation… and REAL women in fact love THAT sort of ‘contempt’!

“Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks.” *shakes head some more*

“Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.” Be lunacy thy name. Funny how SO many women CAN live a safe life however in the company of ‘men’ claiming patriarchy is everywhere already. And funny too, how many women ‘betray’ their friends etc. by accusing them of rape, and ‘s/mother’ their children when they’re fed up with them.

“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” ‘Professional rapist’? Oh you mean, men like Warren Beatty who slept with more than ten thousand females! (Since Polanski only managed half of that number in his life, shame on you Roman!)

“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticising her own oppression.” Wow, THAT must be the most disturbing bullshit I’ve ever heard, or read. ‘Eroticising her own oppression,’ I call it mental disturbance of the worst kind to even think of!

“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.” Is there a word called ‘überlunacy’? It IS for that quote. So in that case, Lewis was never raped, hallelujah!

“Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don’t like it, bad luck – and if you get in my way I’ll run you down.” Ignorant, callous, and murderous too – no wonder men begin shunning women.

“It is not only men convicted of rape who believe that the only thing they did that was different from what men do all the time is get caught.” Is there ANY ‘logic’ in that? Guess not.

“If sexuality is central to women’s definition and forced sex is central to sexuality, rape is indigenous, not exceptional, to women’s social condition.” Sure, in your utopian view of ‘sex’. i.e., self-imposed victimisation. Are these people real?

“Under law, rape is a sex crime that is not regarded as a crime when it looks like sex. (Um, because it’s NOT ‘rape’?) The law, speaking generally, defines rape as intercourse with force or coercion and without consent. (Which it IS.) Like sexuality under male supremacy, this definition assumes the sadomasochistic definition of sex: intercourse with force or coercion can be or become consensual.” Sorry, didn’t get that ‘feminist logic’ either: what ‘force’ in ‘consensual’? Illogical balderdash.

“The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist.” And there I was thinking it was the other way round! I thought sex was a private thing. Guess not. Looks like feminists flaunt their self-imposed ‘institution of sexual intercourse’ like whores do.

“In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” So, they invented their fictional oppression as a ‘group’ in order to avoid responsibility as a ‘single woman’ in sex they blame on men as rape, while in fact having forced these laws on themselves to be rendered completely impotent on all levels to avoid all accountability in the first place and then call it rape? How very handy.

“Acquaintance rape is more common than left-handedness, alcoholism and heart attacks.” Really? And I thought there are millions and millions of alcoholics on this planet or die on a heart attack, as opposed to a few thousand female rape victims per year globally. Oh, forgot, the majority of rape victims are male by now.

“Rape represents an extreme behaviour, but one that is on a continuum with normal male behaviour within the culture.” ‘Continuum’? (To boldly go where no man has… read such bullshit…) I wonder why there aren’t more men in prison for ACTUAL rape then!

“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” Like ‘how’ exactly? No, their lives ended right there and NOTHING can be ‘gained’!

“Compare victims’ reports of rape with women’s reports of sex. They look a lot alike. The major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it.” Because it ain’t ‘abnormal’ and therefore ‘wrong’, but ‘normal’? No? Guess not. Besides, that’s rather contradictory, if ‘normal intercourse happens so often’ while in fact proclaiming that ALL intercourse is ‘rape’. Idiot.

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” Reminds me of the ‘honourable (US) duty’ to call Polanski a rapist and/or paedophile, predator… that’s nothing more than artificially created oppression in order to promote their ‘racism style hatred’ set against the ‘class of men’, which is unlawful in all other sectors to incite. But not when it comes to misandry.

“Female heterosexuality is not a biological drive or an individual women’s erotic attraction or attachment to another human animal which happens to be male. Female heterosexuality is a set of social institutions and practices. Those definitions are about the oppression and exploitation of women by men.” ‘Human animal’? So, females are ‘animals’ too then? Guess so. And, sex is a ‘social thing’? Politicised self-imposed oppression more like. I call it convenient ‘group irresponsibility’ in order to accuse the other ‘group’, i.e., men.

“Men are distinguished from women by their commitment to do violence rather than to be victimised by it.” Funny how many women kill and abuse too, and better still, they obviously love for men to be ‘victimised’ while only decrying female victimisation, not even mentioning child victims.

“No woman needs intercourse; few women escape it.” Frigid anti-sex feminists most certainly don’t ‘need’ sex, they’re all repressed perverts with a very twisted view of sex, while real women do in order to have a balanced sex and mental health life.

“Seduction is often difficult to distinguish from rape. In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine.” Or ‘champagne’, as in Polanski’s case! Sorry, forgot, Geimer chose the champagne, and, ‘ALL men are rapists’ – especially film directors! Seduction is NOT ‘rape’ – seduction takes much longer than any ‘rape act’, during which the female has plenty time to abort the sex, not ‘surrender’ to it, and then cry rape.

“You think intercourse is a private act; (um, yeah, it is) it’s not, it’s a social act. (No wonder the ‘state’ can prosecute, sorry, persecute, men for sexual acts without end! See Polanski.) Men are sexually predatory in life; and women are sexually manipulative. When two individuals come together and leave their gender outside the bedroom door, then they make love.” And there I was thinking feminists don’t recognise ‘gender’, and that sex between man and woman IS gender based or else they’re in fact ‘a-sexual’, no matter the actual ‘gender’. Guess not. But then again, if women are ‘sexually manipulative’, false cry rape accusers are the best example. Shot yourself in the foot with that idiot remark!

These women are mentally ill, to put it bluntly, and should be held responsible for having caused so much damage, and be done for hate speech. This is beyond ‘freedom of speech’, this is inciting hatred directed at a very large group of people, i.e., all men, that directly lead/s to atrocities done to them. Yet, hardly any of them ever paid for it, and most of these false rape accusers, while the law looks the other way even if it has all the evidence NOT to put someone behind bars. If a man would call for justice, they’re being ridiculed, punished some more, and heaven forbid some vigilante to actually seek out such an accuser to make an example of her. One might even lose the plot entirely and really rape their accuser, since men-on-man violence instigated by such a rape crier has seen them behave like monsters against their own on many a horrible occasion. Several men who had been cornered, destroyed, or were released after being found innocent and their accuser got away with it, or after months and years of horrors endured behind bars, have taken the law into their own hands and killed their accusers, since they had absolutely nothing left to lose. Of course, they did and will end up on death row, when such a tragedy could have been avoided.

But, feminists will forever continue handing over all the power of ‘legislated sex’ and propagation of violence to men that way, look the other way when their own are violated in the process. But then again, ‘feminists’ aren’t real women anyhow; they’re ugly caricatures like Lewis, whining little children, disempowered jellyfish out of water with no spine, while a real woman takes responsibility, can be strong, take the pain, control, in love, sex, in every aspect of life without the need to look for a man’s ‘strong hand’, she will only bite, or find a ‘law’ to abuse, take the easy way out and lump her own mistakes or failures on the man. No, she accepts the consequences and through determination and strength will never make that mistake again, end of. Running to mommy or daddy to take care of things is pathetic, weak-willed, and unworthy of strong women. If they tried and still failed, fine, then ask for help and try again, not blame others. Don’t just take the easy road to avoid accountability, no, stop playing the pathetic victim and harvest your own achievements and failures for a change. Good or bad. And most of all, stop crying rape!

There are several reasons recognised (so far) for someone to make a false rape or sexual abuse accusation:

1) To obtain a feeling or ‘power’ – real or imagined.

2) To obtain ‘sympathy’ and attention from others – for whatever selfish/deluded reasons.

3) To serve as a rational (or rather illogicality) for their feelings of sexual guilt over their own wilful conduct and/or to avoid personal responsibility.

4) To conceal an affair – which accounts to a large majority of claims.

5) Thought she might be pregnant (by someone else).

6) To test husband’s (and/or lover’s/boyfriend’s) love.

7) Failure to pay man in question, (like rent etc.) or extortion of accused.

8 ) Thought she might have caught VD from another lover/one-night stand etc.

9) To get revenge on someone they are angry at, envious of, or even their victim’s new partner –‘jilted lover’ springs to mind.

10) To get enjoyment in seeing someone else suffer – for whatever sick reasons.

11) To get monetary ‘compensation’ the easy way – especially when their partner is rich.

12) Because of actual or faked mental illness – the first of which might be excusable (though no one gave a shit that a young, mentally ill boy who had harmless sexual contact with another boy was sent into prison hell).

13) Because of someone being a minor – since parents might ‘disapprove’ of underage sex instead of admitting to the sex to cut it short. Or better still, not kiss and tell to send the adult partner into hell. See Polanski.

I guess all but 4 – 8 and 13 of the ‘reasons’ are applicable in Lewis’ case, though I highly doubt she didn’t ‘profit’ from her lies money-wise no matter what she said, while Geimer falls into number 11 and 13 only, since she inexplicably sued him so many years later, and because she was a minor. And possibly 1, 2 and 3 (or even 4 and 6), for her trumped up claims of first, ‘Polanski had sex with me’ (her boyfriend didn’t believe) changing into whatever else she had accused him of suddenly, (to believe it) only to recant all that in one way or the other much later to make it a simple case of ‘he had sex with me’ again, albeit unlawful for her age. In fact, she’s a hypocrite and BOTH are false rape accusers, plain and simple: Ms Geimer, who however made good on her mistake by campaigning for him once she had found agency as an adult, and most of all Lewis, who however made the even bigger mistake to ever have tried to smear him in the most disgusting form, campaigning for crooked DA Cooley, and there’s NO excuse for it WHATSOEVER either way. Both should be held liable, end of.

Funny how ‘violence against women’, men, or even children is ‘acceptable’ viewing on TV, films, games, on the news, while consensual sex is not, and I can see headlines like this in a few years time: “Man sent to prison for life for having sex with a 30-year-old woman.” Why? Because she USED to be underage! Sometimes I wonder ‘why’ there IS ‘violence’ against women, or children, in domestic situations, other than arbitrary attacks men fall victim to at an even higher rate. So, could it be that the man in fact tried to defend himself in some form, and then is sent down for ‘domestic violence’? Of course, to even think so would be a sacrilege in feminists’ eyes. Women who attack or abuse men for apparently no reason other than exerting power, control and sadism over them, they oddly enough are hardly ever punished, and on top receive all sorts of ‘help’, or ‘counselling’ to sort out their poor confused female brain, while men are sent to prison to brutalise them some more, so they can be turned into real monsters by other men in a vicious cycle of abuse.

Sadly, many men and boys who were sexually abused by women are locked in silence, shame, and self-loathing, mental disturbance and other distressing longterm emotional states that might even turn dangerous, destructive. However, ‘society’ tells the males that not only was their experience not abuse, but that they should have ‘enjoyed’ it, and if they didn’t there must be something terribly wrong with them. Even when their experiences are recognised as abuse, they may be viewed as having been ‘weak’ or ‘not man enough’ because they were unable to stop it, defend themselves, or put it behind them. Female perpetrators can be just as violent as men. Yet, the stereotype and reality of the ‘emotionally clingy’ female perpetrator is given more attention because it confirms our erroneous beliefs that women are weak, emotionally dependent, and non-violent. (Since they of course have occupied that ‘role’ par excellence since decades now, i.e., self-created ‘victimhood’ they can ride whenever needed). I have heard of horrendous stories from men (and women) that were beaten and tortured by their mothers and other women in their lives, and not only in the context of sexual abuse. And, most got away with it, while the male perpetrator doing the same, did not.

Odd how people fail to realise every aspect of their lives is long being controlled by the same feminists (also through many men) in power, just like the articles about this old sex case are doctored, leaving no room for doubts or Polanski’s innocence. Or of course, when the general public starts having too much sex and fun like he had, regardless of gender, orientation, or age, and must pay for it. No, you are NOT allowed to know the facts, or to have casual sex and fun, or with luscious willing teens, unless of course, your every sex act and fun is regulated by the (US) government. Or cry rape accusers. American feminists have aggressively damaged the US social infrastructure (especially men’s and boys’ lives), and their wreckage is on a monumental scale by now and in danger of flooding the rest of the planet soon. It has already, and plenty cases appear/ed in Europe too. The amazing part is that they all get a pass by everyone, men alike, and that since four decades now. We don’t need to analyse these delusional feminists anymore, we need to analyse why nobody stands up to these insane people. No, we need to analyse why the male establishment allows such institutionalised horrors done to their own.

To cite from another false rape accusation site with in-depth articles, in regards to the ‘she asked for it’ rhetoric, the fact that a woman dresses like the proverbial slut, drinks to excess with men she doesn’t know, and engages in sex play with strangers, does not mean that the woman is inviting men to rape them. Of course not. Ever. It is preposterous to even think that. However, this conduct is evidence that, in fact, she either intended to have just harmless fun or indeed seeks consensual sex. That in contrast is common sense. Suggesting that a woman is likely intended to have consensual sex is not the same as claiming ‘she asked to be raped’. But, it IS suggesting that she might also be lying about being raped once she called on the law afterwards, i.e., once sobered up, and NO evidence points to any rape. That’s of course the last thing the ‘sexual grievance industry’ wants us to be thinking, even if the woman is lying. Meaning, the ‘sexual grievance industry’ wants to turn ALL consensual sex into rape. So when a provocatively dressed young woman goes out, gets drunk, and has sex she later regrets, it’s the liberal feminists who say ‘she asked for it’ by describing her experience as ‘rape’, NOT the men.

Clearly, women are in a position where they need to take responsibility for themselves, but, to commit a growing criminal act, perpetrated exclusively by women against men, i.e., cry rape, is simply unacceptable. Funny thing is, with all these highly biased ‘laws’ in place making a proper defence impossible for the accused, but easier for the women to report a genuine rape, guess what, nothing has ever worked to curb alleged underreporting, and underreporting is supposedly still rampant. As but one example, on college campuses, the supposed hotbed for modern rape, therefore more than 95% of students who are sexually assaulted supposedly still remain silent, we are told. So, all the rape reforms, all the bending over backwards to get victims to ‘come forward’ have evidently been a waste of time. Meaning, NO more rapes are reported than before, let alone in epidemic proportions feminist always proclaim. The still prevalent anonymity for the presumptively innocent has nothing to do with whether women come forward. Anonymity does not send a message that real rape victims should not be believed any more than anonymity for rape accusers sends a message that rape accusers should be believed over the men and boys they accuse.

The message conveyed by this very limited anonymity plan is that the harm of publicly identifying falsely accused men is unconscionable, because a rape claim is loathsome and because, once a rape claim is alleged, unlike other allegations of criminality, it is nearly impossible to disprove. Unless someone goes to great lengths to dissect a claim and finds just how illogical and uncorroborated it is. Of course, the sexual grievance industry doesn’t bother discussing the harm to the presumptively innocent, ever. If women want equality, then both the names of the accuser and the accused should be made public, and, rape be treated no different than any other physical assault crime. If the women want the accuser’s name to remain anonymous to the public then the name of the accused should also be withheld until convicted. I guarantee you, many will not bother to cry rape under that scenario. Any statement to the contrary simply means feminists do not want equality. Many times a more prominent man is accused of ‘rape’ (Geimer), ‘sexual abuse’ (Lewis), or ‘domestic violence’ (Gibson), and people who want the man to be named in hopes that other females come forward might sound ‘logical’, but what ALWAYS happens in such cases is that the attention whores come out of the woodwork, former lovers, one-night stands, or even exes who suddenly start claiming ‘abuse’. None of them should be believed.

In that scenario you’ll have females talking to the press (even if they are never taken seriously by the prosecutor, or ever even had an affair with any of the men), telling us of all sorts of ‘sordid’ stuff that might sound logical as to what the public ‘believes’ of the man – as in Polanski’s or Gibson’s case – when it most certainly is not true. Just think of the situation where we have a serial false rape accuser, but the evidence is not admissible, then are told, it only ‘proved’ the man’s guilt the more, though there’s NO logic in that whatsoever, and that previously raped individuals were only ‘more vulnerable’ to being raped again. Sure, like one individual gets raped by completely unconnected persons in a row over a short period of time. That’s like saying that the more you cheat on your ex the more honest you become. See Gibson’s ex, who’s under investigation right now in regards to the ‘tapes’, which were clearly tampered with, since he sounds as enraged as he would, and she like she’s speaking for an audition, with the quality of both extracts clearly not of the same sub/standard., i.e., background noise on his and loud shouting, none on hers and clearly spoken instead of shouting back at him. Pull the other one girl. As usual, such treacherous women play helpless little victims when they want to be, and infallible goddesses the rest of the time bathing in the limelight of the older star.

Women like Allred, known as a cheap ambulance chaser catching a ride on the latest tabloid scandal in order for man-bashing, are a good example of such disgraces, who only picks the sleazy scandals when there are plenty ‘real’ women who were really wronged, (but can’t afford her ‘services’ of course) not like these pathetic prostitutes she represents, setting the ‘women’s movement’ she has ridden since decades back a hundred years. Who once said: “My work is not about popularity contests. It’s not even about justice.” Right, because her kind of ‘justice’ equals dirty money and 15-minute media-whoring, after some ‘hurt little female’ had cried rape that never was. As for her ‘legacy’, both legal and ‘moral’, Allred also said that she is not much concerned about it (no surprise there): “If a man feels good about the way he’s treated women in his life, he likes you, and if he doesn’t, he hates you.” Well, since Polanski obviously didn’t hate Lewis or they’d not had that affair, Lewis’ complaint about any ‘abuse’ is more than ‘fantasy’.

Someone once observed that, with few exceptions, judges do not test the law; they test the political wind. They do not put their fingers on the pulse of justice; they put them on the pulse of public opinion, or the media that had fed the public already enough lies. See pompous old Rittenband, who played to the press, not his own court. In a trial, first comes the opening statement by the prosecution, then the defence presents its opening statement and the prosecution makes the last opening statement that is often given in rebuttal. So the prosecution has the first word and the last word. The defence’s opening statements are sandwiched and obscured by the prosecution’s endless litany of disconnected facts and factual prevarications. This gives the prosecution an unfair advantage already per procedure. The reason that we have juries is to prevent the prosecution, with its limited immunity, from taking advantage of those who have limited resources to defend themselves. A trial including legal representation, private investigation, finding witnesses, and court and legal fees can cost more than the average person can earn in ten years.

Polanski too had to carry all the expenses himself, that’s why he had to stay in the money and was allowed to shuttle to and from Europe to finish his new film his agent had arranged for him, after he lost the previous one right after his arrest. Too many people have pleaded guilty to a crime they did not commit because they could not  afford to prove their innocence, and Polanski only pleaded foremost because the mother pressed for it once she noticed her mistake, yet she had no guts to admit to it or else was done for perjury after she lied some more in court. And her daughter. A DA, who does reject false allegations, faces major expenses resulting from a new trial, diversion costs and whatnot ‘legal obstacles’. Many judges are former prosecutors and became judges based on their conviction rates, and these persons often maintain ties with the DA’s office. Many attorneys bargain with prosecutors to resolve a case in the face of solid evidence of innocence, or to avoid a trial by jury, which could find a defendant innocent, and in no need to ‘plead’.

The falsely accused can bring action against the lying accuser, (if he’s within their court jurisdiction that is, Polanski wasn’t later anymore) but he has no recourse against the prosecutor because of his/her constitutional immunity. I.e., no criminal prosecutor can be held responsible if s/he knowingly withheld evidence at a grand jury hearing or trial, despite the fact that the prosecutor and the accuser violated the law relating to perjury and obstructing the course of justice. Great system. Polanski wanted a trial, but, in his sympathy, or rather stupidity, he also wanted to spare Ms Geimer cross-examination that in fact had found him officially innocent of all but two counts, the unlawful sexual intercourse and ‘lewd acts’ of kissing and caressing her he had admitted to. Jurors who can find the truth among the lies in the prosecution’s case is a good insurance when falsely charged with rape or sexual abuse. Twelve votes of guilty are much harder to obtain from a jury who understands the case than one guilty decision from a biased judge.

See Rittenband, who knew perfectly well Polanski never raped anyone, yet played his own game of, I’ll send you to prison now for fun, because I’m pissed off that you had fun in Munich wile I allowed you to finish your film abroad. Unless of course, a jury never had the entire evidence, they were already poisoned through sensationalistic media, or the accuser could hide behind the Rape Shield Laws to begin with, which was another factor why he had to accept the plea deal the irresponsible mother fully exploited. Once he broke free from the judge’s chain and ball after prison time no one had demanded, he faced the same destitution like so many other men, bankruptcy after the losses of his two film projects and mounting legal costs, since he never was or is ‘rich’, contrary to what people believe. Someone who has to mortgage his Paris family home to make extortionate bail, (which in fact is unconstitutional) is certainly not rich. Had he given in to the clear threat of either, spend the rest 48 days at Chino on [unlawful] self-deportation, or be sent down for good, then have no chance to see the already reneged on plea deal overturned (no judge ever does) to demand a trial, and then needing to appeal any ‘decisions’, that had cost him many more months behind bars than even Rittenband had in mind with the three months no one asked for to begin with. Why stay indeed, if the chance to live and work in the US was destroyed either way by some vindictive judge.

Another thing to ‘make’ someone guilty in the domestic violence sector, e.g., is something in effect of no value, called ‘Diversion Programs’, which involve ‘therapy sessions’ and ‘indoctrination’, i.e., ‘brainwashing’, that can cost large amounts of money and may take several years to complete (just so to see the accused behind bars on ‘technicalities’). Many employ subversive methods that can make someone believe they are guilty. Some mandated programs require the accused to admit guilt as a prerequisite to successful completion of the program. I.e., dupe the already abused defendant. This forced admission (a Fifth Amendment violation not to incriminate yourself) becomes a part of the record and may preclude the right to a trial or appeal. (Similar to the plea bargaining no other country but the US has.) Jury trials are expensive and even an innocent defendant may not prevail. Under those already unfavourable circumstances, the economic realities, of no home and/or employment and no way to pay, may force the accused into this Diversion Program (or plea deal). If the accused fails to complete a mandated program, that fact becomes part of the court record and the criminal case goes to trial. The prosecutor then has free run to poison the jury with the fact that the accused did complete the diversion program, i.e., said he’s ‘guilty’ though he’s not, and the program is an effective tool to ‘make’ people guilty, very harmful, and in fact unconstitutional. (Like a ‘confession’ made under torture.)

This could make a guilty verdict more likely, and, if rendered, the court may require the defendant, besides further imprisonment, to complete the mandated diversion program to make him doubly guilty. If the accused prevails in a trial or successfully completes the diversion program without going to trial, the arrest record and criminal complaint however remain without a word of vindication, and no one reimburses the defendant for his legal expenses and loss of income. The accuser, though guilty in contrast, is very rarely criminally tried (and hardly known to begin with). This presumptive process of guilt was designed by the women’s movement wanting to dominate society through coercion similar to that practiced by past totalitarian regimes on all levels. As a result, the earning power and property of innocent men is now diverted to abusive, lazy women and to dubious ‘programs’ operated by greedy opportunists. Elected politicians, the manipulated, or double-dealing prosecutors and media-hungry judges alike, ‘fearful’ of being seen as ‘soft on crime’, force men mercilessly through the legal gauntlet without compunction, compassion, seeking any real justice, the truth, despite holding all the evidence of their innocence. These callous people play god, and say, if someone refuses to admit to his ‘crime’, he’s in ‘denial’.

How comfortable do folks reading all this feel about someone being convicted solely on the accusations of the accuser? Or such trick programs and ‘laws’? Would people seriously stand behind these highly biased anti-sex and Rape Shield laws had they faced them, suffered them personally? I highly doubt that. And what about those who end/ed up in prison who are mercifully spared rape, sexual abuse or slavery, but have to witness it, over and over? Or might even be forced to rape someone in order not to get raped or enslaved themselves? Ever thought of that kind of sick/ening psycho terror? Course not. American justice has adopted a position that, in a courtroom, all-powerful attorneys can do and say just about anything about a person no matter how untrue or outrageous before they send their clients into hell. Their special immunity protects such conduct in the courtroom, hence Polanski’s failed prosecutor able to publicly call him child rapist, and does not protect such disgraceful conduct outside the courtroom at any rate. It should not make any difference there, for any special immunity is an anathema to our way of life of justice for all.

Imagine what it does to the soul, mind and body of a human being, old or young, to have to sit in a prison cell day after day for a crime you had not committed, or even paid for already but were railroaded into some more time by fabrications of callous lawmakers. Sit in fear of attacks, or having to suffer attacks, and nothing to look forward to at the end of a day but the knowledge of hundreds more days like the one you just endured, your life slipping away in misery. Put anything in life under an objective microscope – anything – and you can always find pertinent questions, always reasonable doubts. Especially if you want to find them, unless you accept incomplete or fabricated information and jump to conclusions, let yourself be influenced by crippling emotions and biased feelings. People ignore simple theories or facts, based on basic evidence in favour of huge conspiracies and complex lies that could never be held together in real life. Or they focus on one piece of ‘evidence’, i.e., the girl’s fantasies, without looking at the big picture, i.e., the man’s defence and actual evidence that had long proven him innocent of what she had accused him of, had distanced herself from. Technically Polanski is the only one who escaped that tyrannical system by taking his life into his own hands again, and that of course is the reason why they still want him back by all means, legal or otherwise, now that the Swiss let him go realising he had done his time decades ago.

The corrupt US legal system having mercilessly pursued men like him, its crooked lawmakers have long become robotic assassins clad in Gucci suits and black robes, creating unthinkable collateral damage in a war that is supposedly being waged in the public’s ‘best interest’. Yet, the Kafkaesque tempest that overtook Polanski three decades ago and once more last year, darkened not only his horizon once more and pummelled the deceptive safety and illusionary harmony out of life, men like him used to took for granted after plenty struggles to own, survived it. And, it had swept away all hope for their future, leaving behind only the solemn, desperate need for peace and justice. Final release. We love to think that justice is blind, but no, it is only blind when it suits pernicious prosecutors and judges, vindictive feminists and pathetic famewhores. We also pray that those who administer that justice are people of vision. Yet, when legal systems have become so twisted that the once sacred letter of the law strangles its very spirit with perverse relish, then even simplest justice cannot exist. It will die as surely as the dreams of a Holocaust survivor when the world caved in around him, twice. All over sex.

For too long many countries have lumped non-violent petty sexual offenders alongside violent rapists, kidnappers, child molesters and even murderers if it had a ‘sexual undertone’. But none so than the sex-repressed US. The violent sex offenders/murderers are always the ones who reoffend escalating their attacks, and they slip through the cracks of the laws because they are on the exact same registry as non-violent petty sex offenders, like the twenty year old convicted of having a one-off consensual sexual relationship with a seventeen year old, or his own underaged girlfriend who became fed up with him and cried rape, or some other non-violent ‘sexual offence’. All of these [anti] ‘sex laws’ should focus on violent sexual offenders who have a real victim, not some young or older man who slept with a young girl. If the roles were reversed, the older woman or female in general hardly does time, had she had a consensual or ‘toyboy’ relationship, or harmless fling with a consenting minor, but in the same breath can cry rape or sexual abuse unlike men or boys. See Lewis. Most of these ‘offenders’ don’t even have a victim, but simply urinated in public, or had consensual [oral] sex, which is a felony (like murder) in all southern US states believe it or not, streaked in college and got caught, or received a ‘sext’ from their underaged girlfriend, but she sees no punishment.

If a nineteen year old boy, who got caught with a sixteen year old girl, who had or had not cried rape, deserves to be on a sex offender registry for life (even online for all to see), why shouldn’t the plenty former murderers be on one? Or in fact the girl? Noticed that the millions of murderers let out of prison after a few years on parole for ‘good behaviour’ don’t have to register their faces anywhere, but some harmless boy or older man who had sex, and needs re/registering wherever he goes for life, but not the woman or the more or less violent murderer who could reoffend? Laws should focus on dangerous people, be they violent sex or other violent offenders, the ones who are the most likely to reoffend, with or without any sexual factors involved, and it’s about time the US government most of all is starting to learn this lesson after too many innocent men being destroyed over sex, radical feminism has imposed on them for decades now. Schwarzenegger has vowed to sign the new ‘Chelsea’s Law’; another ‘murder law’ with a ‘sex offence’ factor, or rather ‘excuse’ to exploit murders now as a means to slyly shunt [all harmless] ‘sex offences’ into a higher category, where a single sex act can get you years in prison already, stuck with hardcore violent rapists or murderers, all to boost political careers and fame.

The jaded propaganda of, ‘save the children’, or, ‘protect [our] women’, and ‘predators can’t be cured’ rhetoric, sure accumulated a lot of brownie points at the expense of many Americans and their ‘family values’, or men in general. It’s nothing more than the criminal lack of state responsibility, accountability and the dishonest avenues legislators have paved to sensationalise their ‘murder laws’, after they misconstrued statistics and cherry-picked sex offence ‘recidivism’ reports as a means of whipping an entire country into blind frenzy to accept these laws. After including children (adjudicated in family court) in the ‘Megan’s Law’ registration and notification lifetime policy without providing the adult legal due process, contractual plea agreements or legal protection afforded to adults (like Polanski), Bill Clinton stated to the nation how, ‘oral sex, it not ‘sex’’, though it actuality is, or otherwise the law books wouldn’t be so keen on punishing it and Polanski hadn’t been indicted on it. Clinton signed Megan’s Law, which purposely made any sexual act or any encounter with a consenting minor a sex crime under the law, like nudity, all underage sexual encounters, playful sexual contact among prepubescent children and sex between mature teenagers all included. In fact, oral sex even between two consenting teenagers is a ‘sex crime’ under Megan’s Law.

Megan’s Law is crafted to expose, civilly exploit and destroy lives of any citizen with any sex related incidence, concocted to fit into Megan’s ‘murder’ offence, and now Chelsea’s Law. Legislative leaders claim, registration as sex offender and its attributes are not a ‘punishment’, the same a way oral sex is not sex, while utterly ignoring the lifelong stigma of ‘sex offender’, who might in fact have engaged in oral sex. Schwarzenegger, known for groping women, escaped his own statutory rape charge with a sixteen year old decades ago while Polanski in contrast was jailed against all counsel, when Schwarzenegger was almost thirty and had a longer affair with the girl. Arnold put Megan’s Law registrants on the Internet including juveniles convicted as adults, and, he signed ‘Jessica’s Law’ in California, which bans all Megan’s Law registrants from living within society, including those convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse or ‘groping’, like grabbing women’s butts the terminator turned into a joke later and still made it to governor, his statutory rape pardoned by another governor. There are plenty ‘girls’ and ‘women’s laws’, but hardly any for abused or murdered boys or men. And when it comes to ‘males’, there’s the Adam Walsh’s ‘murder’ Act , to override Megan’s ‘murder’ Law, in honour of himself and to collect more tax dollars for his ‘National Predator Registry’ SORNA.

Walsh is an America’s ‘lawmaker’, who can unconstitutionally, retroactively gather all Megan’s Law registrants, including those aged 14-18 with past ‘sex related’ ‘Megan’s Law offences’, and make demands that thousands of citizens should abide to the Adam Walsh Act with even stricter rules, harsher restriction and debilitating penalties, because young Adam Walsh was murdered nearly thirty years ago. No wonder that victims of the current sex offender hysteria are outraged at the hypocrisies. This new law will be a gift to every malevolent prosecutor, just as California’s ‘Three Strikes’ law is already, (which can make a ‘third’, even harmless ‘crime’ or ‘technicality’ a life sentence). Just picture the scene, “You had better plead guilty to this [sex] charge, avoid a trial and take the ten year sentence, or we will we will prosecute you under Chelsea’s Law and you will go to prison for life!” Why not just actually enforce life sentences for ‘murderers’? And what exactly does (harmless or even serious) child molestation or (non or consensual) sex have to do with a ‘murder’ case? Murder someone: out in 10-25 years, no registration. Touch a teenager [even innocently]: life sentence either in jail or rarely out on probation, lifelong registration.

Haven’t we had enough of disproportionate penalties [for men] and moralistic double standards? All in favour of ‘females’? Apparently not. We should be more concerned about murderers actually having to do equivalent time and being equivalently ostracised, than with a ‘sex offender’, who harmed no one (other than real rapists obviously). So, what would happen and this new law gets pushed through, if some thirteen year old girl claims a guy ‘molested’ her but he never even touched her, and she just had some ‘emotional problems’? It’s her word against his, no evidence, no defence, no chance. The courts tend to side with the minor automatically, and then what? Does he get a life sentence [too] suddenly, rather than a murderer or violent rapist? Under this new law, as others have observed, unless ‘proven innocent’ of [drugged] rape/sodomy, Polanski could be (and men like him) sentenced for life or receive a very harsh sentences rather than short probation for underage sex. The minor (or false rape accuser) shielded by Rape Shield Laws to start with, it wouldn’t matter if Geimer today would say, ‘it wasn’t rape’, ‘he wasn’t forceful or hurting me or mean or anything’, ‘he’ still would get the max penalty when punishing each ‘sex act’, in case the plea is withdrawn to have a full trial and a [biased] jury would go all the [wrong] way. So much for justice.

It is clear that the least violent and vicious prisoners, women and men both alike, and of course the younger the better, are the ones that most often end up getting systematically abused and/or raped in prison if you happen to end up in a US jail. Unless they’re ‘celebrities’, they can attack and bring down as trophy, with guard A looking the other way while guard B has his own go after the inmates had their fun, and say, oops, sorry Mr Polanski must have slipped and, oh dear… And the poorest inmates for that matter, who cannot afford even to appeal their unjust conviction if they had a biased trial. And, of course, though it is antithetical to our stated and ‘moral ideals’ to set out areas in which inhuman experience is normalised and even sanctioned not only by the law, but, by the media deliberately overlooking the problem, people keep standing by condoning prison violence – or at least keep looking the other way. Though it undermines our democracy, since the US as the one country with the most prisoner violations can’t even get their President on board to do something about it, it’s understandable why it’s so difficult to convince everybody else that this is an epidemic foremost bred and propagated by the malignant cancer called feminism.

This of course being enabled by cry rape accusers foremost, with innocent men being incarcerated for nothing but sex, I always wondered about the [distorted] psychology of accusers in high-profile cases who later recant their charges, and it would be fascinating to determine if most are motivated by ‘guilt’, or in fact quest for fame. According to the repeat patters played out, most of them lied for their fifteen minutes of questionable fame and of course money prospects. See Lewis. So, how many more or less famous people in prison for ‘rape’ right now have ‘pleaded’? All of them, no difference if they’re rich or poor. A prosecutor’s statement that the defendant confessed, pleaded and did (or rather can) not appeal the conviction, rests on the fact their pleading for one, was to avoid exposure to a possible longer [even more undeserved] prison sentence after many months on remand already or they had bad advice from a so called professional, and two, once you plead to a matter before the court, you waive your right to appeal, while you can a appeal a jury verdict [only]. See Polanski, having fallen victim to exactly this Catch-22 trap.

So unless you can get over some ‘procedural error’, or find some judicial misconduct like ex parte communications, or the judge did something not on the record, or abused a ‘diagnostic study’ as actual punishment, see egomaniac Rittenband, you are screwed even if you had a top lawyer and are innocent of the charges. Most people do not have the money to pay for a decent attorney to start with and most [US] States have created an exception to the ‘hearsay evidence]’ (also known as Evidence Code 102 and its subsections, esp. Code 108 concerning sexual matters) that allows the testimony of a law enforcement officer, someone like bent cop Vannatter, or e.g. any other ‘ex-lover’s’ lies, (like Lewis), [even] if the [original] accuser wishes to not testify as it is the case with Ms Geimer (because the actual [defence] evidence spoke against her). On appeal if there was a trial, the Appeals Court cannot even review the weight of the evidence, just the ‘sufficiency’. That is, ‘having money’ has absolutely nothing to do with achieving ‘justice as long as the accuser’s testimony alone is sufficient to convict, and it doesn’t matter if there is a multitude of other [true] evidence that refutes her.

Even if it were her own words of years later pointing to the opposite, see Ms Geimer, the verdict of the jury (or the last word of a judge in a non-jury process) is sacrosanct, and if there is ‘sufficient evidence’, i.e., her uncorroborated claims, must be upheld. Even if the claims were not the truth and everyone knows it. And, even if she were to fully recant, unless the prosecutor switches to attack her for perjury and seeks prison time, she’d simply be ignored when she suddenly speaks the truth. One of the many problems caused by radical feminism, by expanding the definition of rape or peadophilia and insisting that it is ‘common male behaviour’ (to rape or sleep with minors), is that it has criminally softened the idea of what actual rapists or paedophiles in fact are and/or do. Because of the degree of perversion in the US legal community most of all over the last forty years concerning ‘rape’, real or imagined, all cases should in fact be thoroughly re-examined. But that will never happen, and if so, they will find (or introduce) some [new] clause or code to block any exculpatory evidence. Or drag it out for many more years and the man might not be in one piece at any rate anymore.

By now this entire rape culture has gone so far that men cannot even play with their own children in public anymore, photograph them, and pretty much everything that the media has told the public about paedophiles or men in general is a lie. All the fear, all the hatred, all the absence of men in children’s lives – based on a multitude of lies. I could go on about the details: women are more likely to abuse children than men; straight men are more likely to rape children than pedophiles; and so forth (it’s all in the numbers). The important truth remains that MOST people, whether male or female, young or old, straight or gay CARE about children and will not abuse them. In consequence, a child in trouble should ask for help from the first kind-looking adult they meet. The odds will be stacked heavily in their favour. Unfortunately, it only works in societies where adults can look kindly upon children and men – the current situation is aiding those who truly ARE abusive. It’s an evolutionary adaptation gone horribly wrong by now when the adult can be accused he acted improperly, purely a kid (or female) saying so. The distrust of males has been creeping up on us since years now, fanned by the sick minds of a few who have stolen the innocence of children, and left heartache and hardship in their wake. So now men are simply guilty simply by their gender.

Men are now not only all rapists, but paedophiles by default. Because sick/ening feminists say so. See Polanski. What kind of a society is this, where a false rape accuser is hailed as a ‘heroine’ for having ‘recanted’, after the man was destroyed no matter what, and possibly in turn is said to be in ‘denial’ of her [imaginary] rape for recanting, or of course was only lying when she recanted, or is conveniently portrayed as [mentally] ‘ill’ for doing so, too traumatised by her [imaginary] experience, or was abused as a child (if true or not), while, when a male perpetrator with even a non-forcible ‘offence’ tells of his abused childhood or mental issues, nobody wants to hear that a real or ‘made’ rapist is ‘troubled’, even though he truly might be. This is what radical feminism has done to us. If you think acknowledging false rape accusers who recanted prevents true victims from coming forward, punishing those who come forward more severely than those who are caught lying is going to deep-freeze anyone’s hope of exoneration, punishing ALL false accusations harshly is the ONLY effective deterrent. It’s more than apparent that the entire system is defective from the cops to the prosecutors to the juries to the judges and to the appellate division.

And of course the complicit media is part of the worsening problem, which should be held accountable for spreading [rape] lies, or sensationalist [‘celebrity’ rape] news that turns out to be bogus they hardly follow up and declare as false, just so for the masses be left in the belief that so-and-so DID so-and-so when he did not. In the eyes of the news media, a reported rape is a rape-in-fact so long as a female says so and is written up as if it [had] happened. She alone has the power to release the community from its grip of fear about a scary male with a dangerous penis on the loose. And too often, she alone has the power to release an innocent male wrongly arrested for a rape that never occurred. Why? Because the news media, ALL OF US, are too ready to assume guilt on the basis of nothing more than an accusation, while if someone were to be accused of murder, they demand all sorts of evidence. The news media ought to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, it’s their job to report the truth, no? Guess not. Especially not in the US. The obvious delight the rape-baiting media takes in reporting these kinds of cases at the expense of any decent coverage of violence against women and the rape conviction rate, and with the gender feminist perversion of our legal system, is you can no longer question a false accuser.

Apart from that, crying, ‘alleged rape’ is even more effective and can be used as a justification for absolutely everything, including murder of course disguised as ‘self-defence’ or ‘domestic violence’ as seen in several Australian cases. I believe the women of previous generations were far stronger than those undermining lying feminists that have followed who hijacked ‘women’s lib’ to become misandrist strongholds, turning two generations of women into petulant, whining little children, with audaciously conscienceless false rape accusers sprinkled liberally among their numbers. When a prosecution says, the ‘victim’ didn’t want to take it any further, or wants the charges dropped, or, there was no ‘sufficient evidence’ and the case was closed, the deliberately worded inference is clear, and to people and the heckling prosecution this is ‘proof’ he’s guilty, i.e., this isn’t the first time a defendant has done this, though not true. While in the UK any charge can be withdrawn (or refused by the judge) and the prosecution can go home, in the US this is obviously wishful thinking, and the one reason why so many men are being hunted down for all eternity, despite the false (or even a genuine) rape accuser wanting the case be forgotten.

But the best is, in the UK e.g., anyone filing a rape report is entitled to a ‘compensation’ PRIOR to any trial for up to £2000, even at NO proof yet, as long as the ‘alleged crime’ was reported and ‘more likely than not to have occurred’. While the Compensation Scheme is designed to cover crimes of violence, a [handy] ‘exception’ is made for non-forcible rape and other sexual crimes not involving violence. Payments are made for ‘mental injury’, including ‘temporary mental anxiety’, suffered by non-consenting ‘victims’. Under the compensation scheme, non-consensual penile penetration warrants £11,000. Greater sums are allotted depending on the severity of the injury inflicted. A non-penetrative sexual physical act ‘over the clothing” warrants £1000, i.e., a single instance of ‘inappropriate touching’. Conversely, Britain does not compensate men for the greater harm they suffer after being falsely accused, no matter how egregious. It tells us much about how our ‘society’ regards the victims of false rape claims. It is important to underscore the perverse, morally grotesque double-standard here: the ‘victim’ of a single instance of a sexual act even over the clothing is entitled to ‘compensation’, but a man falsely accused of rape, who is arrested and jailed for weeks, months or even years, who is subjected to untold mental agonies, loses his friends, the esteem of his community, his job, his business, his good name, who could be attacked in prison, (though far less prevalently than in any US jail) is entitled to NOTHING. Disgusting.

Also not covered are the vast majority of boys who are statutorily raped by adult women. Or of course by another man. This is because victims of sexual offences are not covered if they ‘consented’, despite the fact that if a girl (or even woman) consented, she is STILL considered a ‘victim’, SHE still gets monetarily compensated as well, and only the boy or man ends up in prison despite having done the same as the girl – have NOTHING but sex. This effectively rules out virtually all claims involving the statutory rape of a teen boy by an adult woman, but if man were to touch that boy would end up in prison for that matter, because the boy is typically a ‘willing participant’ in that boy/female scenario unlike any ‘girls’ automatically made a ‘non-consenting victim’ by default. The fact that the law has determined that boys are ALSO incapable of giving valid consent to engage in sexual acts with an adult is of no import to the compensation ruling. The obvious double standards are more than blatantly immoral. It is also clear that once a false accuser has been found out she had lied, after the man’s life was destroyed at any rate, it’s more than unlike that any compensation could ever be recovered, though some of them ended up in prison, not so much for perjury, but failing to repay the money, which technically is extortion.

In German the state does not pay anything, where compensation follows civil action only, if successfully or not depends on the validity of the case, as against the state paying out large sums even without any proof, i.e., taxpayer, while victims of truly violent crimes hardly see a penny either way. Very much like it is in the US, which is being massively abused for all sorts of fanciful ‘crimes’, unlike in Germany, since German law demands PROOF of rape unlike the US courts pandering to these liars while imprisoning the innocent. Surely the trauma of actual rape requires not state-funded windfalls to begin with, but proper health and counselling services that really help genuine victims. What the state should compensate are men who lost EVERYTHING, after a teenager or woman went to that same state and law to cry rape. I fail to see how financial compensation from a government is going to help a genuine rape victim. It’s not going to take away the pain or agony of the ordeal and paying out money solely based on an accusation is insane. If a government truly wanted to help a victim of violent crime, they’d make professional treatment programs available to them so they could move on with their lives.

Letting girls tell stories in the privacy of their own homes is one thing, forcing society to believe their rape lies is another, and that ‘another’ is now a feminist powered perversion of the law enforcement community enabling them to lie. It is clear that the prosecutorial profession has but one consensus: false rape accusers are either to be treated as above the law, or given the absolute minimum the law allows. They are doing this both in deference to the feminist freak groups, and to make things are easy as possible for themselves: if they can have a system in which men are second class citizens who are not entitled to legal redress when they have been assaulted through the legal system, then they can throw all of the mud they want at male defendants without having to worry about eating crow later on. So, the problem is the prosecutorial profession in general, not just a handful of rotten apples they enable to cry rape in the first place. The politically correct media also has a consensus: the names of anything making a rape accusation are concealed, sometimes long after they have been proven to be liars, while the man is named and wrongly shamed so he can be demonised for all eternity despite being innocent of rape. See Polanski.

Due to feminist jurisprudence, women and girls are given a free pass in the US judicial system most of all and the majority of women and girls involved in [true] sex crimes are given lighter sentences for their criminal behaviour than men simply for their gender, getting way with literal murder in many cases, and it needs to STOP. The feminist movement is 100,000% on the side of false rape accusers, who don’t give a toss about real rape at any rate since they look gleefully upon a man or boy being sexually assaulted, and it is a rare occasion when they don’t come out to rationalise a liar’s actions or cite from the handy Rape Trauma Syndrome manual, or claim even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the victims has done nothing to deserve being prosecuted for their lies. Their collectivist mentality leaves no room for individual justice, and most of all personal liability and legal accountability, and they have absolutely no real interest in ‘equality’, a word that really means female supremacy by law. We have seen time and again that as long as they remain unpunished, they will continue to make false rape accusations for the pettiest of reasons.

If you get drunk and have sex, don’t expect Joe [and Jane for that matter] Taxpayer to empty their wallets paying for a ‘rape’ trial if you wake up and suddenly ‘decide’ due to your petty regrets or sexual [and/or other] ‘dissatisfaction’ that you were ‘raped’. If someone ‘gropes’ you without malicious intent don’t cry attempted rape either, just tell him off by all means, or one day genuine assault victims unless visibly injured will not be believed anymore over petty bullshit like that. Getting drunk and/or taking drugs and then have sex is a CHOICE, and not an advisable one, but WE should NOT have to pay for the consequences of that ‘choice’ when ‘YOU’ wake up with ‘regrets’. Suck it up, after you sucked enough [dick] already just to be blunt. The principal legacy of feminism is to ‘empower’ women by misusing the letter of the law and insisting they are ‘powerless’, incapable to ‘consent’, made little whining ‘disempowered victims’ wherever possible, and, because of that purported powerlessness and glorified victimhood, they are excused from assuming all personal responsibility and legal answerability for their actions, while men are being punished for the female’s little imaginary travails.

Here’s a little choice selection of the ‘battle of the sexes’ language taken from the False Rape Society site I’m sure rings all too true without being ‘misogynistic’ as feminists would see it:

Women routinely bellyache about the slightest whiff of sexism but snidely remark that any male who exits the elevator before they do has no “manners”. (Or conversely, if they hold open a door, frown at them for taking them incapable of opening it themselves.)

A man who mentions anything sexual in a conversation is “creepy”; a woman who mentions anything sexual in a conversation is “empowered”.

Men with younger women are “disgusting” and “dirty old men”; women with younger men are “empowered”. See Polanski. (It’s pure JEALOUSY.)

Man who hits his wife = batterer, felon; woman who cuts off her husband’s penis = victim, feminist hero. (Who got ZERO prison time for nearly killing him.)

Male bashing = humorous and empowering; female bashing = misogyny.

When a woman sees a man naked in his house, he’s an exhibitionist; when a man sees a woman naked in her house, he’s a Peeping Tom.

When women commit domestic violence, it’s called “self defense”; when men act in self-defense, it’s called “domestic violence.”

When an angry woman commits a terrible atrocity against her boyfriend, we gussy it up into a romance novel and call it “scorned love.” When the genders are reversed, it’s “domestic violence”.

Men hitting women is a solemn public service announcement; women kicking men in the balls is hilarious and justified, regardless of whether there was provocation.

A man who murders his wife is a murderer; a woman who murders her husband must have been abused.

When it comes to rape, we empower young women by insisting they are powerless; we make them strong by insisting they are weak; we celebrate their free moral agency by insisting they are incapable of resisting male coaxing.

Rape of women is a national crisis; (much higher) rape of men in prison is a punchline.

Telling young men who would never harm a woman to be part of the solution to end rape is laudatory; telling young women who engage in promiscuous, drunken behavior with men they don’t know to be part of the solution to end rape is “victim blaming”.

When underage teens have consensual sex, usually only one is convicted as a statutory rapist and, upon his release, is required to register as a sex offender. Can you guess his gender?

Men having sex with teen girls are scum who are sent to prison for many years; women having sex with teen boys are “mixed up” and emotionally immature, and the courts do their best to keep them out of jail. (See Polanski.)

If both the guy and the girl get drunk and have sex, she’s a rape victim, and he’s a rapist.

A teen girl who has sex with a barely adult male is a rape victim; a teen boy who has sex with a barely adult woman “wanted it”.

When a woman accuses a man of rape and he denies it, there are conflicting claims of criminality, yet only one is arrested without any corroborating evidence; only one’s name is reported in the news for the world to titillate to his humiliation; only one is likely to be imprisoned if he’s convicted; and only one will have the accusation trail him like a ghost for the rest of his life even if it is false. See Polanski.

For ‘sex crimes’, the disparity is even more alarming: a Kansas State professor recently found that, on average, male teachers faced up to 20 years in prison for sex abuse, while female teachers were handed probation, house arrest, or a maximum of three years of jail time.

While an individual is capable of doing terrible things to another individual, including rape, the state itself should never fall to the level of a criminal and reasonably risk doing a terrible thing to another human being. Yet they do and charging a man or boy for rape on the basis of doubtful evidence is among the most terrible things that we, as a society, can do. A wrongful acquittal is a terrible thing, too, of course. But a wrongful acquittal is never, ever the equivalent of a wrongful conviction – morally, legally, or any other way – and to suggest otherwise is nothing short of morally grotesque. The victim of genuine rape is not at risk of losing his/her liberty for decades even if their rapist goes free, and if s/he was put away so much the better. But an innocent man or boy imprisoned for a rape he did not commit is often destroyed by the experience, the systematic prison abuse worse than death, as are the lives of his loved ones, including the women and children who depend on and love him.

Our law enforcement personnel, print and media journalists need to go back to doing what they were trained to do: investigate. Treat every rape claimant with the utmost respect, and treat every man or boy accused of rape the same way. And be sceptical of everything. Don’t arrest for rape, and don’t report that a rape occurred, until your investigation is completed and you’re sure about it. Journalists should never, ever, ever say ‘police say a rape occurred’ and leave it at that. They need to tell us why the police say that, find out if there is another side to the story, and check into it on their own. They are playing with the lives of the presumptively innocent, and their responsibility far exceeds snagging big ratings. They need to be held accountable. To perpetuate this dangerous trend, it insults women as a class by implying that they are either too stupid or too weak to act as free moral agents capable of making even fantastically dumb choices when it comes to sex, and that they need an unholy alliance of radical gender feminists and chivalrous guardian angel males to protect them from the male evildoers.

Second, and more importantly, it insults men as an entire class, because it suggested that when men and women engage in consensual, albeit fantastically stupid or underaged sex, the men MUST be predators, the women MUST be innocent victims, and later, if the women try to destroy the men’s lives by crying ‘rape’, at the very least, the men will get the ‘good scare’ they deserve. That’s insidious feminist logic for you. If you are truly interested in truth, then you have to be prepared to recognise and acknowledge hypocrisy and double-standards whenever they occur. Living in your propagandised media bubble, dominated as it is by sanitised dross dressed up as ‘news’, you don’t ever get to know what is really going on in the world today. Reading a truthful article might rattle your cage a little in the direction of real knowledge.

So, why do these myths persist? Because they make great copy and because there is something mesmerising about a statistic that freezes journalistic brains, especially when the statistics bolster common cultural biases or trends. And one especially pejorative but persisting cultural trend is the impunity with which all men can be demonised. The moral of these hoaxes is to view statistics that paint a negative picture of unusually high numbers of men with deep suspicion. The radical feminists are smart. They know that because men hold the majority of powerful positions – be they police, politicians, judges – they can then use the perception that women are weak and meek to further their agendas. Any women in similar powerful positions may feel they owe a debt to feminist sentiment. Cunning! If one is to accept the basic principles of equality that feminism advances, then one must accept that women, like men, are capable of the entire range of human action and experience: from the summits of artistic creativity and human compassion, to the depths of debased violence and evil. And bare stupidity to have drugged/drunken sex. Like Polanski and Ms Geimer. Meaning, BOTH have to pay for it, NOT only the man no matter the woman’s age. Once you’re of puberty, you’re capable of reproducing, become a mother and should take responsibility for ALL your actions, and equally be punished when you mess up. End of.

The very discussion of rape becomes a sort of ‘high’, a ‘truth serum’, a fix for [certain] women, a magic elixir that forces anyone not possessing a Y-chromosome to utter incontrovertible truth and that everything THEY say is rape, MUST be rape. Is this in any sense plausible to a fair-minded person? Course not, only for the selfish and pampered little feminist brain. But because of our feminism-monopolised anti-sex laws and indoctrinated governments encouraging this kind of victimisation behaviour, the overriding evidence showing that false rape claims are a significant problem causing unconscionable damage, and that the victims of false claims are not rarities, are simply ignored. Because of some sad, pathetic female and her self-absorbed little grievance with no self-respect and common sense, and society being too sympathetic of ‘weak little women’. As such, [many] women never learn how to grow up, because society and laws never forces them to and to take responsibilities for their actions, be it in or outside the bedroom. If society actually treated women as though they WERE equal and not children, they would become equal and not act like children feminists have imposed on them since decades now, some exploit to the most devastating results.

‘Professional victim’ comes to mind. See Lewis. It’s a psychological disorder involving the production of non-existent physical and/or psychological ailments to earn sympathy, feigning illnesses for monetary gain or to avoid inconvenient situations, and most of all to attract compassion or to control others. These women portray themselves as poor victims of men, sexual abuse/domestic violence and of course rape, supported by liberal courts, the mainstream media, (also called sleazy sex scandal sites) or both. Using resources skilled in the art of propaganda or litigation, such liars use our misandrist system as a weapon of personal attacks, [celebrity] extortion, political leverage or any combination thereof. Many people who present such personality disorders crave sympathy and support because it was notably absent in their childhood as seen so often. Human beings are social creatures and need social interaction, [positive] feedback, and validation of their worth. The emotionally mature person doesn’t need to go hunting for these; they gain it naturally from their daily life, especially from their work, stable relationships, their caring parents, siblings, family and friends.

The emotionally immature person, however, has low levels of self-esteem and self-confidence and consequently feels insecure; to counter these feelings of insecurity they will spend a large proportion of their lives creating situations in which they become the centre of attention, a ‘victim’. It may be that the need for attention is inversely proportional to emotional maturity, ‘projecting’, therefore anyone indulging in attention-seeking behaviours is telling you how emotionally immature they are, or ‘naïve’. See Lewis’ claims that she thought she was ‘street-wise’, and, ‘not’ a drug addict but was ‘seduced’ by drugs and men she could not escape, while in fact SHE was the teen prostitute and later sexual predator seducing men first, not the men she then blamed for it all accusing them of ‘abuse’. Or rather only one man to stand in for all in the ecstatic glare of the world press: Polanski. Being the centre of [such high-profile] attention alleviates feelings of insecurity and inadequacy, fed her narcissistic egotism for fifteen minutes of famewhoring, but the relief is temporary as the underlying problem remains unaddressed: low self-confidence, self-esteem, consequently low[er] levels of self-worth and self-love, continued drug abuse, and finally the crash after having been found out to have lied, made a [worldwide] spectacle of herself and was [deservedly] ridiculed.

Insecure and emotionally immature people [like her] telling of sexual abuse ‘of the worst kind’ created by their sick fantasies often exhibit bullying behaviours, specialise in manipulation and deception, lying for gain and inflicting pain on others. (Though some keep forgetting that they told to whom and are found out to have lied, see Lewis.) These are necessary in order to obtain attention and self-gratification which would not otherwise be forthcoming, and when found out they wind themselves out with more lies. Bullies and harassers have the emotional age of a young child and will exhibit temper tantrums, deceit, lying, fits of crying and manipulation to avoid exposure of their true nature, to evade accountability and sanction. As ‘victim’ they are not responsible for their self-created reality, and thus not to blame if they or their lives are a mess. . See Lewis and her drug abuse and sexual excesses. After the event of the Pill, there came the sexual revolution. Women were free for the first time to lead sexually active lives without fear of social disgrace or, more to the point, of pregnancy. But this brought a new problem for them: how to deal with unwanted advances, to be called loose, or a [sexual] predator.

So then came another revolution: American feminists discovered acquaintance or ‘date rape’ to extend the myth of all men are rapists at heart; usually when both people had been drinking and taking drugs before sex, or when the woman thought better of it, either at the time or subsequently. Nowadays, when a woman stoops to folly, she simply calls it [date] rape. Or to cover up an affair. There is worse danger still: waking up with someone you wouldn’t have touched sober, or with the ‘wrong man’, may be regrettable, so they came up with ‘victim feminism’, to retreat into appealing for status on the basis of ‘feminine specialness’ instead of human worth, and fight underhandedly rather than honourably, take accountability. Victim feminism is when a woman seeks power through an identity of [state legislated] powerlessness, claiming that drunken sex is just as bad as actual rape, aided by gold-digger clientele lawyers like cheap and nasty man-hater and ambulance chaser Allred. Apart from wondering what a woman gang-raped by enemy soldiers would say to this, its long-term consequence will be that violent rape itself is no longer taken seriously, because of pathetic little whining females and vindictive false rape accusers. Like ugly liar Lewis.

Believe it or not, one radical feminist thought to reduce rape, by ‘redefining masculinity’ in men. As in, make them more ‘feminine’, ‘passive’, ‘soft’. Though she probably never heard of aggressive women demanding or initiating sex, i.e., behave ‘like men’ in their own feminist handbook. She argues, ‘masculinity is associated with dominance and virility while femininity is deemed passive. (True, many see it like that – but that’s only what ‘society’ made of it, not ‘nature’ per se, since a woman can be equally active, aggressive, dominant, you name it.) Men’s sexual prowess is regarded as something ‘natural’, while women’s sexuality must be ‘controlled’, when they dare to be more sexual’. No, sorry, that’s BS; when did men ever say women’s sexuality needs ‘controlling’ THESE days? Other than when crying rape perhaps, or after becoming a stalking predator or nymphomaniac. (I’m sure they’d love a raunchier woman in the sheets, and the days of women’s sexuality being demonised are long over.) The problem isn’t the way that masculinity is ‘defined’ in our culture; the problem is the culture itself feminists have in fact created themselves. A culture where female sexuality isn’t just ‘accepted’, but encouraged, ‘celebrated’, while male sexual behaviour is actively condemned by society today, deemed as debased and predatorily, or even paedophiliac.

Of course, what she forgot to mentions is this: the vast majority of women in fact want men to be dominant, virile, and aggressive, protect them, mainly from other bitchy women trying to fish for their man. In short, they want men to act like men, love to see them fighting over them, wine and dine them. Men [stupidly] oblige, because it improves their mating chances, i.e., have sex, and to get the younger, prettier female at the end of the day. Such is life feminists want to redefine. Moreover, the vast majority of wo/men know that dominance, virility and aggressiveness and sometimes trying to mate with more than one woman have nothing to do with rape, or sexual abuse. Rape is the product of a criminal mind, not garden-variety ‘maleness’ or culture-driven ‘masculinity’. Such new redefinition ideas only shows how desperate these rape advocates are to make men the eternal rapist wherever and however possible, by trying to change the very essence of their being male and they being female. But then again, feminists don’t accept there is any gender difference, and believe sex is a social phenomenon, not private gender interaction. That’s why they don’t give homosexuals or lesbians any second thoughts, or if either of them gets raped by their own sex.

The general understanding is that sex sells and that the selling inspires advertisers, films, TV programs, websites, art and almost anybody else out to make a quick buck. This asymmetry results in women constantly flirting with and leading men on, while never intending to ‘go all the way’, and this in turn leads to those men becoming sexually frustrated, which sometimes backfires and creates a rape scenario (feminists of course call victim-blaming.) Is it any surprise that some men find themselves unable to control their urges and take what they need, just like women in fact, but only the man pays for it? Until these issues are resolved rape by either sex will continue to be a problem, not any masculinity or femininity. Trying to shunt all of the blame onto just the men is incredibly offensive, since these women, who cause men to become sexually frustrated aren’t the ones who are subsequently getting raped or assaulted; instead, it’s the vulnerable women, frequently the ones that try to remain sexually private, the isolated ones. Trying to argue that rape is purely something to be fixed by changing men is like saying that people who live in poverty choose to do so; it’s incredibly short-sighted, insulting, and doesn’t address the root problem.

An excess of over-sexualised imagery in mainstream media, drawn from adult culture and increasingly directed at young teens and children, is responsible for maintaining the ‘rape culture’ problem, the constant oversaturation of sexual freedom these images offer (or condemn for that matter depending on the TV channel), and when teenagers in fact grab that offer, (or conversely get twisted by ‘sex is a sin’), who gets punished for it? Only the male. Rape is a crime like any other physical assault, yet, people assign it some ‘greater crime rate’ than torture or even murder, forcing all men to apologise for rape, make them feeling guilty over rape, but oddly enough not over torture or murder committed by men against women. Sorry, I won’t play that blame/guilt game. I didn’t rape anyone, they did. Besides, there’re plenty men and children out there having been raped, are being raped right now, by other men or women feminist don’t give a shit about in contrast. So no, I won’t feel guilty over women getting raped by men. Change your own attitudes towards and treatment of men, and THEN rape will diminish, not by calling man rapists and tell little boys never to touch little girls even playfully, but allow their sexuality run their healthy reign and not punish them for sex in the first place.

Many duplicitous feminists will fight hard for equality in any way that women are currently seen as ‘inferior’ to men, yet simultaneously fight to maintain any situation where women are currently seen as ‘superior’, and of course conversely endeavour to disempower them in turn when it comes to sex and make them ALWAYS the victim. If you want equality, you have to be willing to be equal in ALL things, not just in those areas in which you are currently getting an easy ride. Then there’s the hardcore feminist movement itself, NOT the once ‘honourable’ women’s lib idea/l to gain equality with men long surpassed by an entirely anti-male oriented movement that has become extremely imbalanced and damaging. One of the negative outcomes of this ‘equality’ r/evolution gone awry, and the current obsession with this oversexed culture, is ‘slut-slamming’ of women and girls who are sexually active – sometimes with many different partners and sometimes in public – while, if men would do so, they’d be slung inside for being all sorts of predators or paedophiles and whatnot, NOT ‘sexually active’, but sexually destructive.

The latest comment I read on some man-bashing blog was this, since they love to redefine the word rape, and of course what a rapist is ever more, saying: ‘Yes, if a woman is too drunk to consent and you have sex with her – you are a rapist. (No, if a woman is too drunk by her own hands that’s HER problem, not his. But he’s no doubt stupid enough to touch her, since he puts himself in danger of ending up being falsely accused of rape.) If a teenager is not of legal age or you didn’t know her age and still had sex with her – yes, you are a rapist. (No, if the minor allowed the adult to sleep with her or lied about her age, she should be punished for it too. Or neither of them.) If a woman is pressured into having sex and doesn’t really want it and you have sex with her anyway – yes, you are a rapist. (No, then she should just walk away and not lead the man on and just ‘let it happen’, or cry rape afterwards.) If a women doesn’t say ‘yes’ and you have sex with her – yes, you are a rapist’. That’s even bigger bullshit than the crap before, since in that case the vast majority of consensual sexual encounters were all ‘rapes’. But then again, to even think that all this is ‘rape’ only shows how skewed the words rape and rapist have become in a twisted feminist brain. No wonder they call all men rapists.

Most boys and therefore men, through direct and indirect role models, good parenting, promoting healthy sexuality, are taught to respect girls and therefore women, and to suggest that all men are expected to wear the moral burden of a criminal few is an insult. No one asks women to feel collectively guilty of female rapists or killers. Hold the violent rapists to account, definitely. Make the court process more bearable for the genuine victims, male or female, certainly. But there’s no need to start a mass campaign to redefine ‘masculinity’, because the few that would be inclined to rape females, or even males (and of course women violating men feminists always love to brush under the carpet), won’t be affected by a new ‘definition’ of ‘maleness’, but they might be affected by a better court process to nail them for their offences. So let’s not conflate rape with fondling female breasts or male genitalia, it will never constitute rape in any normal person’s vocabulary. And let’s not pretend that one in five women have been or will be ‘raped’ – only if the term ‘sexual assault’ covers a whole lot of things that are sex based. And to argue, that an unwanted touch is equivalent to a violent rape demeans not only the victims of the latter, but is obscene to even think they are on par.

While historically a man and a woman once where punished equally for an equal crime, now we hear and read, ad nauseam, of excuses and condonation, for every crime committed by a female, while a crime of precisely similar a character and under precisely similar circumstances, where a male is the perpetrator, meets with nothing but virulent execration from that truculent ass, which is destined to be raped by other men. The justification for the whole movement of feminism in one of its main practical aspects, namely, the placing of the female sex in the position of privilege, advantage and immunity, concentrated in the current conception of ‘chivalry’. Now this word chivalry is the last resort of those at a loss for a justification of the modern privileging of women. Political feminism is simply grotesque in its inconsistent absurdity and exemptions given to females. To men all duties and no rights, to women all rights and no duties, is the basic principle underlying the feminist dogma. The savage vindictiveness exhibited towards men, as displayed in the eagerness of judges to obtain, and the readiness of juries to return, convictions against men accused of crimes against women, on evidence which, in many cases, would not be good enough (to use the common phrase) to hang a dog on, with the inevitable ferocious sentence following conviction, may be witnessed on almost every occasion when such cases are up for trial. Or in underage sex and [false] rape accusations.

The age of consent is an arbitrary standard of maturity that does not fit well with the individual’s actual ability to consent to sex. Certainly prepubescent children can use a much higher level of scrutiny in the law to protect them, but not mature adolescents, especially after the adolescents already consent to sexual activity with someone, and this has been really exploited by the law. Age of consent laws are designed to punish older males exclusively, (the odd female doesn’t really count) who seek companionship with a younger, sexually mature female who desires him, and should not go to prison for acting on that which is normal male sexuality. A society that criminalises sex, is a cruel society that values females over males and treats women as if they are children. If we are to treat women as children then we should be consistent. Any woman who had sex with older men is as much a ‘victim’ as teenagers who have sex with an artist after a photoshoot. In both cases, feminists are angry because the woman has been ‘fooled’ into having sex with a male of higher value, because he is older and more experienced, because he has learned the elements of attraction and ‘seduction’. In both cases, women are presumed to have no responsibility for their own actions and to be little more than infants.

If they wanted to protect young girls, it would be a punishable crime for girls to be sexually active. But no, they lobbied hard that it not be illegal for a girl of any age to do what an adult female can legally do, to avoid crying rape. Yet, they only throw the man who slept with the girl in prison, but the girl, clearly an accomplice to a ‘crime’, walks around scot-free. It’s unrealistic and dogmatic that the Americans expect men and women to defer sex and family, or at least family, for a decade after puberty. That seems to be the characteristic perversion of our time, the one so widespread and customary that most consider it ‘virtuous’. We have a situation in which the age of consent has been going up for some time, while the age of puberty has been going down. It is obvious that there is a real conflict here. The favourite crank of the radical feminist, that of raising the age of consent with the result of increasing the number of ‘victims’ of the designing young female, should speak for itself to every unbiased person as being unacceptable gender favouritism, since the real victim, the male, ends up in prison after he had bedded her.

After all, you can’t really expect that men’s rights, freedoms and lives are really worth the effort involved in wasting that extra breath or tapping a few extra keys on the keyboard to say, ‘alleged victim’, or accuser, complainant, when a ‘rape’ case is plastered all over the news. Unfortunately, the only way these insanely draconian anti-sex laws and media manipulations will ever be reviewed is when sufficient numbers of women become similarly [unjustly] affected as men and end up in prison or are publicly shredded without a guilty verdict, though they’ll still be in lesser danger to be gang raped or in fact found guilty. Women alongside feminists were swept along with the mob hysteria in supporting the implementation of increased laws and harsher penalties for minor sex offences, wider definitions and harsher sentencing when it only affected men, but are now beginning to regret this as the same laws are increasingly being applied to themselves. While a murderer gets life, is out after ten years for good behavior, someone who touched a teenager ‘lewdly’, or ‘made’ her/him to do so equally getting life – which is insane in itself and to put that kind of harmless ‘offence’ on par with a capital offence at the same penalty in effect utterly trivialising a brutal crime – has sometimes no parole prospects in contrast. I’m sure if more women are treated that way, they’ll swiftly call for reforms and more lenient sentencing rules.

The golden rule of human interactions is to judge a person, or a group, by their actions rather than their words. The actions of ‘feminists’ reveal their ideology to be one that seeks to secure equality for women in the few areas where they lag, while distracting observers from the vast array of areas where women are in a more favourable position relative to men (the judicial system, hiring and admissions quotas, media portrayals, social settings, etc.). They will concoct any number of bogus statistics to maintain an increasingly ridiculous narrative of female oppression. Feminists once had noble goals of securing voting rights, achieving educational parity, and opening employment channels for women, ‘equality’. But once these goals were met and even exceeded long ago, the activists did not want to lose relevance. Now, they tirelessly and ruthlessly lobby for changes in legislation that are blatantly discriminatory against men (not to mention unconstitutional and downright cruel). Not satisfied with that, they continue to lobby for social programs designed to devalue the roles of husbands and fathers, replacing them with taxpayer-funded handouts.

By encouraging false rape claims, they devalue the credibility of all claims, and genuine victims will suffer. By allowing dehumanisation of their sex partners and using children as pawns, they cause children to resent their mothers when they mature. At worst, become rapists and the vicious cycle they have created never ends. By making baseless accusations of ‘misogyny’ without sufficient cause, they cause resentment among formerly friendly men and ‘make’ them ‘misogynist’. Feminism is an aggressive counter-reaction intended to protect the threatened reproductive and sexual interests of middle-class, middle-aged women in a free sexual marketplace. That is, when the introduction of the contraceptive pill in 1960 revolutionised the dynamics of the sexual marketplace and impelled women to take on an independent political and economic role to secure their reproductive needs. It’s all about what they have between their legs – nothing. Another ploy is whenever they don’t like criticism levied against them they call it sexism, while they don’t care about criticism or sexism in regards to men. It’s also called hypocrisy.

You all need to understand that you’re not empowered by pretending you’re powerless and keep playing the pathetic little victims. But such logic eludes the feminist brain. Women can communicate clearly and directly at their job and otherwise. With clockwork precision, women can schedule their responsibilities at their employer, their schooling, family, church, friends, or mundane daily tasks. Women outnumber men at most colleges, and can presumably write papers on advanced theoretical and applied concepts utilising classical argument, logic and rhetoric. As television commercials routinely remind us, women can multitask half a dozen duties and complete them all masterfully. Yet, women also simultaneously expect men to believe that in a single aspect of their lives – the way they communicate with and behave towards dates, boyfriends and husbands – they suffer an inexplicable and complete breakdown of their logical, organisational and moral facilities, and have no control over their actions, no power to change, that they need endless patience and understanding and that they deserve a pass due to being at the mercy of their little ‘feelings’ or for being ‘female’.

On the one hand, they want to be seen as strong and equal when it suits them, or as ‘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. 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. 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 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. There is no such thing as responsible journalism anymore let alone today and it sickens me. 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 ugly liar Lewis. It is the ‘mission’ of radical feminism to unshackle women so they can express their ‘femininity’ in whatever manner they desire, and to shackle men so that they can express their masculinity only in the manner feminists approve. When men look at or bed young women they’re warped, perverted and paedophilic monsters who end up in prison. See Polanski. When women look at or sleep with teenagers they’re ‘empowered’, ‘exploring their sexuality’ and get all sorts of passes not to end in jail since the ‘boy wanted it’. A ‘toyboy’. But not the ‘little girl’ rendered a ‘powerless victim’ in contrast. Sure.

Some say, fourteen is too young for girls to be sexually active, so when are they supposed to actually start learning to be sexually responsible and developing beyond the physical, emotionally and psychologically to mature in synch? By the stroke of the age of consent clock suddenly? If it were for feminists, never, so they can continue being little girls and victims of the bad men and boys. It is unbelievably hypocritical to punish men who sleep with fourteen year olds who initiate (or not) consensual sex with long prison sentences, when at the same time the government and schools push for birth control and access to abortion for these same girls without the consent or knowledge of their parents. So, either these girls are ‘little girls’ still and should not be having sex and also carry the consequences for engaging in illegal sexual conduct and for becoming pregnant unlawfully, or they are ‘women’ who can choose to have sex with whomever they like regardless of the age of their lovers. The issue here is whether fourteen year old girls are ‘children’, the media loves to dub teens as or even women ‘little girls’, whom we do not allow to have sex because they are too ‘immature’ to handle any of the consequences of sex, but are held responsible for everything else like murder – or ‘women’, whom our society says should be allowed to ‘explore their sexuality’ without barriers, while at the same time say that a fourteen year old boy ‘wanted it’ and is never a ‘victim’.

If the issue is the latter, statutory rape laws don’t make any sense because the girls themselves are choosing to be sexual, engage in sex, a behaviour which our ‘society’ promotes through every venue – media, peer pressure, sexy fashions and oversexualising them at very corner, you name it. They are only following the examples shown them, ‘endorsed’ by feminism, and when they do, only the man however gets punished for the females’ very own actions like a honey trap, of looking and behaving sexy and seductive. But, if the issue is the former, than we should throw everything we have at this problem to stop teenagers from having ANY sex, because the idea is utterly repellent a concept as murder. So, saying that a fourteen year old girl, who finds herself with an older man, is never accountable for her OWN actions? The girl who entices guys into having sex never has any responsibility at her end, that 100% of the responsibility for the situation rest always with the man? A girl who lets herself be seduced to have sex? How often is it not all the man who makes the first step, yet the girl is never punished for it? It’s called double standards stacked in favour of the female ‘sex’, nothing else.

Females also attach some kind of ‘mystical significance’ to their oh so sacred virginity. Most of them seem to experience regret about losing it when they did, where they did, under the circumstances they did, and with whom they did. They seem to think some kind of ‘cosmic event’ will happen if they lose their virginity out into metaphysical minutiae and are usually angry that some kind of spiritual renaissance that was never promised, implied, or even hinted at fails to materialise. That’s a good time to cry rape. Female virginity is just a medical guarantee that you have not had sex previously; it isn’t an ‘interdimensional portal’ to a higher plane of existence. It’s sad, because as long as women believe it is and are treated special when it suites them or in regards to sex, men like Polanski will continue to pay the ever-higher price for women’s fanciful delusions and any kind of sex with them. It’s about time the unrealistic age of consent and blanket anti-sex laws are overhauled to be REALLY equal for ALL, and not punish casual sex the way murder is – with preposterous life-long sentences at conversely no parole prospects. But maybe that will only occur when too many women are also sent down for ‘minor sex’, and one false rape accusation too many.

In Canada they will roll out an ad in bars’ men’s bathrooms that shows a young woman conked out on a sofa after a drunken night, still dressed and ‘untouched’, but obviously intoxicated and maybe even unconscious. Or just asleep. Now, the more than ambiguous caption reads: ‘Just because she didn’t say no, doesn’t mean she said yes’. To what exactly? To get herself drunk? Obviously not to have sex while pissed, which would be clever on her part. BUT, then it goes on holding young men who do not rape responsible to stop rape, while encouraging young women to consciously put themselves in situations where rape, and misunderstandings about whether rape occurred, are far more likely to occur, and is nothing but asymmetrical gender blaming. So, if she didn’t say no, or yes, and then had sex, that WAS a ‘yes’ and HER responsibility. But, only to say no ‘afterwards’ is WRONG, or to send men to jail by falsely accusing them of rape that never was. Just imagine the man would say no afterwards or accuse her of rape, because HE was drunk or stoned too, or only, would he ever had a chance to get a female into jail for having ‘raped’ him? I HIGHLY doubt that.

With this, perfectly innocent men are collectively held responsible for rape, even though they equally collectively have essentially no ability to end rape, since it’s not boys and men who rape, it’s C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L-S, because women rape too. Putting aside that by now most rape claims are pure fiction, the ad misrepresents what feminists call ‘date rape’, sex with a woman who is awake and gives every outward sign of being a willing participant, including saying ‘yes’, or ‘nothing’, but was ‘too drunk to consent’ to notch it up a bit and render the female utterly unaccountable in ALL situations for ALL her own actions. Never mind extremely few people want to have sex with an unconscious person, or even stinking drunk partner or don’t know that would be wrong. Fact is, women DO get plastered and have sex and the majority in fact does not cry rape afterwards. But, too many do, and if actual rape is one of the worst things that can happen to women, (and men feminists simply ignore), and women honestly believed drinking leads to rape, they shouldn’t drink themselves into a stupor not to know what they did once sobered up. And, if drinking is such a big factor in the rape of women feminists want us to believe it is, simply ban drinking for women since they are in fact the biggest binge drinkers.

Why should ‘she’ be considered a ‘victim’ only, when a couple drinks to mutual excess, which is in fact very common and the younger the more prevalent, and then mutually decides, in their mutually reduced state of consciousness and rationale, to have sex? In that scenario he is every bit as much a ‘victim’ as she is. But no, only the male ends up in jail when someone thought they had been taken advantage of, when in fact both should be charged with raping each other since the mutuality of their stupidity does not cancel out whatever shared criminality exists the law stipulates. Or better still, don’t charge either of them to avoid drunken sex being criminalised and fill prisons with only men who did nothing than what the woman did – get pissed and have sex. But that would be intelligent. The real goal of these ads is to foment the rape hysteria and to remind people that date rape is a significant problem when it’s in fact not, since evidence doesn’t support it, thus justifying the existence of the paid sexual grievance industry and send men into jail to get raped there. Telling a man not to rape does nothing since actual rapists WILL rape no matter it’s against the law, and is a waste of time on the average male population since he wasn’t going to rape anyone anyway.

If he’s one of the very few that would rape, since rape is always a repeat offence and means fewer men are responsible for all rapes feminists also keep forgetting, I am pretty sure some clearly misandruous ad or laws will not stop him. It might even fuel his desire to rape some more, since he recogises that this is clearly an anti-male ad and that all women are ‘victims’, so why not create some more. Feminists really think a poster, or blaming all men for the very few, will suddenly fix everything and stop rape? Yeah right. The fact that women rape too, are sexual predators and just as violent abusers as men doesn’t seem to interest anyone let alone feminists, who in fact welcomed that ad, obviously, or, we could just as easily make anti-child abuse and male rape posters and put them in women’s gyms that say: ‘Just because he’s too young (or drunk if he’s a teenager or even man) to say ‘no’, doesn’t mean you’re not abusing and raping him’. Make an, ‘only women can stop child abuse and rape campaign’ and see how they like being stereotyped by what some sick freaks in their own gender do, but will no doubt make a big fuss when men do. They want ‘equal rights’? Make them bear equal responsibilities and penalties. But hey, it’s easier to play the powerless victim.

04
Jul
10

ROMAN POLANSKI – HE SAID SHE SAID THEY SAID – AN OP END CASE ANALYSIS PART THREE

Continued from Roman Polanski – He Said She Said They Said – An Op End Case Analysis Part Two, found HERE.

As the Swiss government seems to be moving closer to a decision about whether to extradite Polanski back to LA, or not, a Swiss justice ministry official told the Sonntags Zeitung newspaper June 4th, and that colleagues were close to making a decision, but would not say when it would occur. The officials said Polanski would be able to appeal that decision. Of course, LA prosecutors still maintain that the filmmaker faces up to two years in state prison, when that’s utter nonsense, after having done his time already, and his attorneys have suggested that he could be finally officially declared sentenced in Switzerland rather than in California. Swiss officials have said they were waiting for Polanski to exhaust his legal appeals in LA before making a decision on extradition, which is of course impossible since they just drag their feet anyhow. Unlike too many ignorami calling for ‘justice’ – obviously in no clues what that really means – others call for restraint and closure and to stop the inane name-calling, since this is such an old case that even Ms Geimer wishes would ‘go away’. Had she not lied, it would have. It’s not like there’s any shortage of really bad people out there right now and Polanski never was a threat to anyone at any rate – or we’d have many many more cry rape callers in his case. But such logic eludes every single one of his hate-filled, sanctimonious detractors. Of course, if articles still insist on he needs to be ‘sentenced’, how could the public think differently, or with every new ‘version’ of any developments getting nastier in tone and not only political incorrectness. Especially in mainstream US papers.

Well now, as expected and indeed wise to do, the Swiss Justice Minister, i.e., Widmer-Schlumpf who just won respect again, has rejected the US request for the extradition – so announced today July 12th – saying, “The reason for the decision lies in the fact that it was not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty a fault in the US extraditionary request.” The Swiss government said extradition had to be rejected ‘considering the persisting doubts concerning the presentation of the facts of the case’. Indeed! The Justice Ministry also said that national interests were taken into consideration in their decision. In rejecting the extradition request from the US, the Swiss Ministry cited two factors: first, the US had failed to provide the records of a January hearing in LA County Superior Court that would have shown the judge in charge of the Polanski case in 1977 agreed that ’the 42 days of detention spent by Polanski in the psychiatric unit of a Californian prison represented the whole term of imprisonment he was condemned to’. Swiss officials said records from that hearing would have established whether the judge who tried the case in 1977 had assured Polanski that time he spent in a psychiatric unit would constitute the whole of the period of imprisonment he would serve.

“If this were the case, Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the US extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation.” Unlawful is a better word, and yes, he has done his time three decades ago, except Cooley didn’t want the world to know. “Second, when Polanski travelled in September 2009 to the Zürich Film Festival where he was arrested as he arrived at the airport, he did so in ‘good faith’ that ‘the journey would not entail any legal disadvantages for him’.” But then someone called on Cooley, and there went Switzerland’s once so famous neutrality, and Polanski headed for jail. They noted that Polanski had been staying regularly in Switzerland since 2006, and though he was registered in the Swiss registry of wanted persons, but sold him a Chalet anyhow and didn’t think his case was of any importance, he was never controlled by the Swiss authorities. Undeniably so. Switzerland’s top justice official said he could now leave. “The freedom-restricting measures against him have been revoked. Mr Polanski can now move freely. Since 12:30 today he’s a free man.”

Meaning, had the US not lied and falsified the extradition records, withheld ailing Gunson’s vital testimony to prove Polanski had done his time, played their usual repulsive name-calling and witch hunt games, the Swiss might have ‘listened’. But, instead they finally listened to superior reason, adding a vital measure of final justice to this contentious situation Polanski was caught up in again. Though Polanski could have appealed the extradition, “The United States cannot contest the decision in Switzerland,” said Widmer-Schlumpf, adding that Washington has accepted Bern’s move to turn down its extradition request. The Justice Ministry also notes that the wishes of Ms Geimer were considered, unlike the vindictive LA courts had, who was the loudest voice calling for the witch hunters to leave Polanski alone. Roman is a free man, again, after 289 days under unlawful detention. Now he can finally go home again to his no doubt relieved family, and do what he does best, make more acclaimed films. Polanski has shed his electronic bracelet and left his chalet in Gstaad already.

Well Cooley, who’s lost his gamble to become Attorney General on Polanski’s back, seems your dream of wanting Polanski’s head on a platter to humiliate him some more didn’t quite work out, and your smear campaign to coax the Swiss into hasty actions backfired massively – serves you [all] right. So, name-calling LA prosecutors and the puritanical American public didn’t get their pound of flesh, aw, shame. Looks like not everyone is as corrupt as an LA courthouse whore and the Justice Minister in fact administered real justice for a change, and I just as might even think that her letter of wanting Polanski back in a secure facility was in fact a fake, just so to whip up more frenzied witch hunters, since it only appeared on an obscure US site. Cooley bungled it up all up with his self-indulgent arrogant antics of playing the, ‘we’re America/ns, we can do whatever we want’ bullshit card. Only a corrupt LA DA wants to have his fifteen minutes of fame as an ugly parasite on an old accomplished man who weathered men like him decades ago, i.e., Nazis, who then brought in other 15-minute famewhores, i.e., Lewis and Allred, and lost that corrupt/ed game.

Technically however Polanski is back to where he left off before his rearrest, since other countries might want to make the same mistake and arrest him again I’m sure the States would love. But on the other hand, many more know now at least that he had done his time for unlawful sexual intercourse, (when I thought sex was a private matter) and a perfect reason to flee Rittenband’s arbitrary court when he attempted to punish him twice for it. The only problem is, he and all the others got away with their disgraceful misconducts, since the case is still not litigated to be finally closed for good unless Polanski is declared in absentia. I’m sure Cooley & Co will not concede to the fact, not do so, or that Polanski cannot be sentenced ‘again’, since he had served his time already at Chino in 1977/8 for 42 days, and, the 70 days on Swiss remand must be counted in addition, exceeding the 90 days Rittenband had in mind. Though the house arrest cannot be counted, it means the seven months of lost freedom Polanski had to endure can never be recovered. Of course everyone is thrilled with the outcome, especially his wife and children, friends, even statesmen and of course the film world – and his loyal fans who know better.

Switzerland for once proving herself as independent sovereignty, and no lackey of the US, still, the US [online] magazines however keep repeating the mind-numbing mantra that he had escaped jail or even the charges and prosecution, (NO), or pleaded, admitted to or was convicted of ‘rape’, (NO), or the drugging and raping and sodomising, (NO), only showing these still all too obsessed people are no more intelligent than before his unsound rearrest. Besides, if he ever had ‘admitted’ to being rapist or paedophile, which in itself is rather stupid to confess to if you’re not, they’d charged him accordingly. But such logic eludes most tripe-fed brains. They learnt absolutely nothing of the case details, that there is no such a paradoxical thing as a ‘one-time rapist’, since it indeed never was rape and the reason why the unfounded counts were dropped, and that the breakdown of the justice system on the scale this case has highlighted once again is simply criminal. Besides, it was over three decades ago, and why these people of today not half his age need to invest their time in obsessively vilifying an old man who had done no harm to anyone let alone Ms Geimer by her own admission they love to ignore too, with the same mind-numbing mantra of ‘drugged/child/rape/sodomy’ rhetoric always followed by a series of exclamation marks, is beyond me. What the defeated LA courts will do next however, is another question.

After the decision drew cheers and jeers on both sides of the Atlantic, of course, an LA Superior Court spokesman said, “That warrant remains outstanding,” adding that Polanski could be arrested and sent to the US if he travelled to another country that has an extradition treaty with the United States. Of course, because you love playing vindictive little children running after innocent men now that you were put into your place of world diplomacy by a little country like Switzerland. Don’t worry, after that fiasco and the fact that the LA courts lied, NO other country will touch Polanski. A State Department spokesman said the Administration was disappointed by the Swiss action. “The United States believes that the rape of a 13-year-old child by an adult is a crime, and we continue to pursue justice in this case.” ‘Child’? ‘Rape’? A teenager is NOT a ‘child’ even by law, and it certainly wasn’t rape either even by Ms Geimer’s own words. Are these people deliberate being obstinate or just generally hatemongering hypocrites? Guess both. And ‘justice’? A warmongering country that sends innocent men into prison for sex has no sense of any justice. DON’T YOU HAVE REAL CRIMINALS TO PURSUE RIGHT ON YOUR OWN DOORSTEP? Guess not.

Cooley called the decision a ‘disservice to justice and other victims as a whole’. ‘Other victims’? Oh, you mean all those who are gang raped in prison because YOU sent them there on fabrications wholesale? Sure. And the only ‘disservice’ to ‘justice’ is your pathetic corrupt self. He accused the Swiss of using the issue of the confidential testimony as an excuse to set Polanski free. “To justify their finding to deny extradition on an issue that is unique to California law regarding conditional examination of a potentially unavailable witness is a rejection of the competency of the California courts.” Unique’? ‘Competency’? No, it would have proven Polanski had done his time, YOU obviously cannot ever allow being made official, because you have no idea what ‘competency’ is, and only shows that your US ‘laws’ are not compatible with real justice. A top Justice Department official said the US extradition request was completely supported by treaty, facts and the law. No, it was neither factual nor lawful, I read it, it was full of Swiss cheese holes, or the Swiss would have extradited him. The Department is ‘deeply disappointed’ by the Swiss rejection and will review its ‘options’. ‘Options’ sounds scary. And illegal.

So, getting your butts kicked in public by a tiny country isn’t reason enough just to give up and concede Polanski did his time, to litigate all the disgraceful misconduct, and then close the case with grace? Instead of continuing with the narcissistic whining, threats and mindless vengeance? Guess not. Isn’t it just amazing how the repressed US psyche becomes even more twisted when regarding ‘justice’? But what you expect from a militant people who nearly wiped out an entire race, keep killing people globally, living in their dark rape and sodomy world barely out of their toddler boots thinking sex is a sin and must be punished, saying, ‘he brutally raped her unconscious child body’. Boy, what mind-boggling diatribe, too thick to realise there were no signs of forced rape or sodomy in any form. Grow up! She was as mature as a twenty year old and certainly not unconscious. I’m sick and tired of reading such repetitive self-indulgent garbage. Or, ‘the ‘excuse’ given by the Swiss in their rejection of extradition is unacceptable, and to suggest that the US declare war on Switzerland and nuclear bomb the hell out of the country until Polanski is for certain dead since not a rock will remain upon rock and no living thing remains.’ Forgetting that Polanski is long back in Paris, these people are demented hate and warmongers, plain and simple. THAT is ‘unacceptable’ and hate speech. The Germans call it ‘Grössenwahn’ – delusions of grandeur. Quite fitting.

After Polanski offered ‘a massive thank you’ to all concerned through his French lawyer, saying, “I simply want, from the bottom of my heart, to thank all those who supported me,” before he left his Chalet to head home right after he was declared a free man again, Ms Geimer’s first public reaction to the decision of Switzerland to refuse extradition, was, “I hope that the DA’s office will now have this case dismissed and finally put the matter to rest once and for all.” I doubt that, they didn’t listen to you before, they won‘t now or ever. No, they made it perfectly clear that they must pursue some old director in obsessive spite till he’s been mauled over and over in the sadistic public eyes and lies bleeding in the glare of the media lynch mob jerking off on it. They’re more than happy this distressing chapter has brought Polanski more petty little haters, while no doubt bringing him more supporters as balance as true friends and loyal fans never deserted him, simply knowing better that he never violated anyone, let alone Ms Geimer who made that clear now often enough. They are able to distinguish between the private man of then or even now, the unsurpassed director, and most of all, the unacceptable status quo of this corrupt case no one can fix anymore, or wants to, since it’s much easier to commit more misconduct to cover up the old transgressions while foaming at the name-calling mouth like hyenas out for blood.

The system of laws and prosecutorial ethics are the only things that give our justice system credibility, stability, integrity and real dignity. Clearly those ethics were violated from day one, and this extradition refusal was an expected outcome that Cooley brought on himself, which began in 1977 when egomaniac Rittenband dictated his own media circus. The Swiss authorities allowed the US to act in good time, yet, many months passed, Polanski and his family were torn apart, and the US did not respond in their glorious arrogance, but rather put on a great smear campaign show to influence the outcome. Switzerland has one of the most perfect judicial systems in the world jealously admired by many countries. In the absence of clear instructions from the US, i.e., Gunson’s proof, Bern did the right thing and the US Ambassador in Bern, under the instructions from Washington, warmly supported the release of Polanski. Roman travelled all over Europe, had been domiciled in Switzerland and France for many years and never faced rearrest. People who still call for his head in this self-righteous and vindictive fashion like fascists need to get a grip and face reality.

They also keep retelling the same old lies like it happened at a party, or that he confessed to it all. NO HE DID NOT. Even the so called victim does not share any of the self-obsessed feelings these witch hunters are consumed by, lecherously get off on. The corrupt DAs keep wasting taxpayers money and time on some old case rather than catch criminals in their own backyard, in dire need to see a shrink to find out just why they must incite mass hysteria by painting this thing as something it never was. This case was never about any ‘justice’, it was about a crooked DA and his henchmen using the headlines for a higher job after jail bait lover Rittenband needed more clippings for his own scrapbook. What people of today simply don’t understand is that the public attitudes toward sex and drugs have changed greatly, especially when minors are involved, and you should never force to pursue old cases based on that moral change, or apply laws of today retroactively – that’s illegal. Consider it as a different culture – do you think you have the right to condemn it and that after all this time, with half of you not even alive then? Don’t think so.

Roman served his sentence and had every right to flee the Santa Monica courts when their deal was broken, or file charges against the corrupt LA legal system today. Bottom line is, pitiful and shallow souls are always more interested in a witch hunt than what the woman of the piece wants, or most importantly to uphold the law, no doubt only until the law abuses them and then cry for justice the way Polanski has done since decades now. Ms Geimer telling the LA Times today July 14th, “Enough is enough. This matter should have been resolved 33 years ago,” she can’t understand why prosecutors continue to pursue the director, maintaining that he’s not a threat to anyone, adding, “At 76 years old? I don’t think so.” He never was a threat any rate, or we’d have had countless more cases of ‘rape’ with his amount of sexual encounters. But it seems legal officials are refusing to heed her continuous remarks, vowing to continue their merciless pursuit of Polanski which is nothing but repulsive vindictiveness since ages now. Don’t they have any other thirteen year old girls who were rally raped in LA, right NOW? Guess not. Vindictive, vindictive, vindictive.

The facts of the case haven’t changed, there was no rape and Polanski was railroaded. But ‘moral’ attitudes, legal language and the politics of ‘laws’ and ‘crimes’ have escalated quite drastically when a ‘sexual offence’ is involved. They keep redefining what a ‘victim’ or ‘crime’ is to make smaller transgressions look like heinous offences, and have adopted the incensing rhetoric of ‘child rape’, or child sex crime’, or ‘child rapist’ when no ‘child’ was ever involved, but a mature teenager who was sexually experienced and used to drugs and alcohol from her own family background – who did not want this entire madness to erupt in the fist place. But when her suddenly oh so ‘caring’ mother interfered, Ms Geimer was forced to lie by coercion of the cops in regards to the sodomy, i.e., bent cop Vannatter, it strikes me as odd he wasn’t the least concerned about any ‘justice’ back then when he abetted a crime to falsify records, intimidated witnesses, and that he hasn’t spoken out about the corrupt judge in this case, i.e., ego-tripper Rittenband, a case he himself has undermined greatly by forcing Ms Geimer to lie, and Huston into betraying her friend Polanski. This guy is not going to trash his own crooked fellow so-called law enforcers of today to call him a liar. Or any criminal DAs.

Ms Geimer stated often enough that she always thought Polanski should have been freed and is thrilled with the decision of the Swiss. The DA’s office and the corrupt LAPD hate hearing that, but not as much as they hated it when the facts in this case came out and it was revealed that LA’s judicial system didn’t play by the rule book. I.e., Zenovich’s documentary. They don’t mention that part of the case, ever. Switzerland said, ‘we will not extradite someone back into this legal morass,’ because of all the misconduct issues making this extraditing request hopeless from the start. I’d say, into the hands of ‘legal morons’, those having mis/handled it from the start. Polanski’s lawyers have issued a statement calling for an investigation into the US refusal to provide requested evidence to Swiss authorities in this old case, i.e., Gunson’s testimony. The one-page statement released July 13th in LA made no personal reference to Polanski. It was the first official defence comment since the Swiss refused to extradite Polanski. The attorneys asked for the appointment of a commission by the California governor, i.e., ‘Arnie’, or Attorney General to look into the official misconduct in the 1977 case. They said the LA County DA, i.e., Cooley and his lot, i.e., ‘Walgren’, purposely withheld the material sought because it would have undermined the extradition request and of course proven that Polanski had done his time decades ago.

It is obvious that the US considers itself as a law entirely unto itself, and that everything and everyone must yield to their every demand. It does not only reject the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, but also that it has openly stated its intention of freeing by force any US citizen who might find him/herself in the dock at the ICC. I.e., going into The Hague all guns blazing, or send out their CIA agents to kidnap foreign citizens they think need to be dragged before their corrupt and biased courts – rightly or wrongly. It is a well-known fact that the DA’s cases are based on the office’s whims and fancies rather than evidence. They just make up their minds that a person is guilty and go after them. They will cook up evidence if they need to and have done so often enough. All they had to do was give the Swiss what they were asking for. But no, since they’re incompetent buffoons in suits no wonder the Swiss had no time for their nonsense. Their incompetence in effect led to a family and many others getting away with perjury since a proper trial would have found them all out finally and officially and the case could be litigated. The fact that Ms Geimer has recanted her original story in little ways often enough and begs the whole thing be dropped perfectly illustrates that, and once again can be glad that there will be no public trial. Though that also leaves Polanski’s petty little haters in the erroneous belief that he did all she had accused him of ages ago. No, he did not.

Today’s public figures, whether movie stars or politicians, have the added burden of zero privacy, or even credibility when it comes to anything ‘moral’. No, they’re being held to a higher standard while most of us have done or said things we aren’t proud of, yet play sanctimonious judge and jury over others. No, we don’t have to see them going viral all over the Internet and then edit their words, skew and twist them to make them lies, make up things over and over in a mind-numbing mantra, of, ‘he drugged, raped and sodomised a crying child’. No, he never did. The media’s sole purpose is to fuel a downward spiral in shared ‘moral values’, and exaggerated sensationalism is ‘upgraded’ in order to enhance sales and site hits with the speed of a mouse click. All this revolves around the degree of ‘criminality’ we as a society ‘assign’ to each individual, and Polanski will never have an image other than what he had before – all based on lurid fantasies, repetitive falsehood, with people blindly believing what they hear or read, not ever questioning anything to get the whole picture, demand THE TRUTH. No, they’re more interested in lies and salacious scandals to brighten their boring little lives, so invested in others they have no business with. No, they simply ‘believe’ to feel better, like the hypnotized and duped masses under Hitler believed in a better future, and look where it led them: into unmitigated chaos.

Polanski was considered one of the most dazzling figures of the new Hollywood. His acclaimed films seemed to emerge from some shadowy, sexually infused realms people took for real, confused them with his own life. The sexual revolution going hand in hand he had enjoyed like everyone else, had changed everything with the event of the Pill in 1960. Vogue, Vogue Hommes and Playboy featured pictures of very young girls, ten, eleven years old, twelve year old Brooke Shields played a prostitute in Pretty Baby in 1973, Jodie Foster another preteen hooker in Taxi Driver in 1976 when she was fourteen, and the soft-focus films of David Hamilton, in which he portrayed young girls as nymphs, reached a mainstream audience and no one was called a paedophile for photographing or sleeping with teenagers. All this was normal at the time and no one cried rape or abuse when someone seduced them unless they had ulterior motives when it came to ‘celebrities’. Today all too puritanical people are keen on destroying their very own legacy they or their fore/fathers and mothers had zealously created themselves, after drinking, sleeping themselves through the days and nights high on recreational drugs and casual sexual encounters, by proclaiming their petty moralistic sermons bashing the bible of all sex is a sin and must be punished severely in ever more overzealously bigoted hypocrisy.

If you don’t like your own evolutionary soup, don’t spit in it to sour it for everyone else. It’s your own legacy if you lived it or not, and it’s not your right to demonise a bygone era you never even knew personally. Polanski’s complex case revolves around many issues that do not fit in with today’s ‘über morals’ and anti-sex laws anymore, questions about the freedom of art and excesses of sex and drugs, about the loss of perspective in the days of the sexual revolution and the drug culture people today wished never happened, and about society’s growing fascination with its stars, who are idolised and demonised at the same time, a free for all to destroy as they see fit. The case is about important issues of law and justice gone unacceptably haywire, and most of all, that you cannot find Polanski guilty of something everyone else did that was as normal as it is now – except no one would dare say so today. He cannot ever be made guilty of our past times with overkill indignation, just like laws and penalties cannot retroactively be applied though people would love to do so. And why keep saying, ‘to face the charges’? He ‘faced’ them three decades ago and even pleaded to one of them. Besides, before the US get too high and mighty about a country refusing to extradite, remember that the US don’t have a good track record in extraditing to other countries in the first place.

I also noticed that the US media immediately stifled all explanations as to why the Swiss refused extradition, became typically self-reflexively sarcastic and ridiculing, just so to whip the outraged public into more frenzied stupidity, with huffing and puffing bloggers calling for his films to be boycotted, his assets seized, even kidnapped and killed, seeing it as personal affront in their glorious patriotic self-righteousness, condoning worse crimes than what they think he did while not bothering with real crimes around them. With tirades like, he ‘sadistically raped and sodomised her’, these people need a reality check, since if he had, she’d be begging him back into court, not to let him be. Sometime back I thought, what would have happened if Polanski had been indicted on merely what he had pleaded to, unlawful sexual intercourse and nothing else, would anyone have condemned him that easily then or today? They’d probably still thought he raped her even if she said they just had sex. Meaning, however you dice it, he’d always been made into a rapist simply for Ms Geimer’s age, if her testimony was believable or not. Only forcible intercourse is rape by law that never took place and that by her own admission. Besides, there’s no such thing as a onetime rapist, and don’t even give me that nonsense that he raped other ‘little children’ we don’t know of. This ‘child rape’ rhetoric is getting overly stale now. Get a life alright. Or find a real rapist in your own neighbourhood.

While the sexual harassment case made against Steven Seagal, has been dropped, what a surprise, the former personal assistant of his had launched a $1m (£650,000) civil suit, what a surprise, claiming he had sexually abused her and illegally trafficked women. No reason has been given for the case dismissal, and it seems another popular American got a pass from the same LA courthouse that vindictively pursues Polanski over some old sex with a minor they had botched from the start and botched some more deliberately. No surprise there. His wife and family happy that the nightmare is over, so is Polanski. While people keep ranting on about how the Swiss now too condone ‘rape’, they’re obviously too thick to realise that it never was ‘rape’, in any form – or they had him plead to that, not underage sex. A plea deal is always struck on the one applicable count after the uncorroborated counts are dropped and he never was convicted nor pleaded to or confessed to them in any form. Keep on disseminating the same old lies why don’t you. The LA courts once again proved themselves that Cooley was looking to use Polanski for personal reasons that had nothing to do with the case, with a judge who was fixing the case for his own public image and that DA Wells goaded him into sending Polanski to Chino in the first place. The World has watched Cooley & Co lie under oath often enough now and nothing was done, and it will never change since DAs hold special immunity to avoid any prosecution from defendants by default. So someone like Wells is safe from being prosecuted for his interference in the case by goading Rittenband into the Oktoberfest/Chino ploy. Arnie will not help the case litigation either, and it will take many years before any country can trust the US legal system again after this show of smear campaigning.

Given the fact that both the prosecution and the judge in the oh so ‘civilised’ US legal system reneged on a made deal with the accused, why on Earth should the Swiss have trusted the same system to treat the director fairly ‘now’? Plus, in civilised European countries, there is such thing as statute of limitations, i.e., the US ‘vengeful justice system’ is not compatible with real justice, still stuck in the Middle Ages with death penalties, absurd three hundred years prison sentences for multiple sexual acts with your own underaged girlfriend. Murderers are eligibility for parole after ten, twenty years for good behaviour even if they received life, while someone who had sex has no prospect of parole since they of course see nothing ‘wrong’ with their ‘crime’, hence ‘deny’ their ‘guilt’ and are ordered to remain behind bars, and that sometimes even after they in fact have been found innocent of ‘rape’, for some false rape accuser having been found out or recanting. All over sex that should NEVER be punished. Polanski could have  looked at fifty years, while, a gruesome murder gets punished less, since a killing is only ‘one’ count, no matter how brutal. Once the convict is released, s/he doesn’t need to register as ‘murder offender’, clearly a threat to the public, but, someone who had sex needs to register as ‘sex offender’ next to brutal rapists and peadophiles. Why should the Swiss authorities send an old man back into this self-obsessed US revenge machine after more than thirty years and into the dirty hands of law violators committing more and more malfeasance each day?

Someone seriously stated, ‘now we shall see if the current Mrs Polanski will allow him in the family home and return to the marital bed’ – hello? How dull are you lot? She knows perfectly well he never raped or sodomised anyone and stands behind him a hundred percent ever since they met near three decades ago, let alone is a ‘homosexual who rapes boys’ as some other idiot proclaimed in even bigger lunacy. These demented people are just too desperate to make up more lies and don’t care about the fact that the law has been made another travesty of, but need to keep feeding their revenge-driven little egos with more bigoted diatribe. Another one went, ‘my heart goes out to all the thousands of rape victims who are abused each year’. What exactly has Polanski got to do with them? They keep wondering why Ms Geimer again asks for Polanski to be left alone, too thick to realise that no genuine rape victim would ever do so, accusing her of ‘ulterior motives’ I doubt I need elaborating on. They don’t ever think that she could have lied, was coached to lie, was spared to be found guilty of perjury when they avoided a trial to expose them all, just so to keep revelling in their follies of rape and sodomy. Sure, why not, since all they ever read is just that – too ignorant to actually question her original claims, and that a Grand Jury testimony has zero validity until it was proven in a trial. The fact that her mother never ever was heard of again outside her manipulative testimony, also speaks louder than her hasty act to call on the law having destroyed her career and that of her daughter in one fell swoop.

Now, in a new twist (or more lies) in the endless saga of this case, a spokesman for the LA prosecutors said they had never heard of the Swiss’ request to be presented with Gunson’s testimony. I doubt that, since even the public knew of it after it was mentioned often enough in the media, that the Swiss still waited for it and even knew what it contained. The Federal Department of Justice and Police, i.e., Widmer-Schlumpf’s office, stated that the request was addressed to her American counterpart. “The Department of Justice is our partner in extradition proceedings, not the LA courts,” said a spokesman on July 15th. Bern has sent their application on May 5th after Polanski had spoken out against Cooley on May 2nd and the US Department of Justice replied on May 13th, refusing to send it, citing a ‘confidentiality clause’. I.e., that it was only intended to ‘preserve’ Gunson’s testimony for posterity in case he’s not available anymore at one point since he’s undergoing cancer treatment. We all know that document was intended to clarify whether Rittenband had assured all parties, at the September 19th meeting in 1977, that the 42 days Polanski would spent at Chino covered the entirety of his imprisonment to then be released on probation.

They obviously don’t want to uphold this deal, despite Espinoza’s own words that ‘nothing precludes the possibility that the 42 days were Polanski’s entire punishment’, only to refuse to unseal the transcripts weeks later himself. The rejection to forward them is one of Switzerland’s key arguments for refusing to extradite Polanski, since by all means he had done his time, and no one can be punished twice for the same offence, and of course wouldn’t extradite anyone who’s not up for more than six months at any rate. And rightly so. Now, as it goes on and on and on with the pathetic whining, mud slinging and lies from across the pond, the US Justice Department in fact said that the LA DA’s, i.e., Cooley’s domain, approved the denial of the Swiss request for information in the Polanski case. Meaning, the very opposite to what Cooley had mouthed about and that he no doubt denied access to the transcripts himself. Swiss officials said the denial led to Polanski’s release, and the Swiss Justice Department repeated July 16th that it kept the DA’s office fully informed of all requests from Swiss authorities regarding the effort to have Polanski extradited to the US, which the LA courts of course deny. Like no one would actually keep records of such a high-profile case exchanges to call Cooley a liar.

After the Swiss making the wise and politically sound decision based on the provisions of the extradition treaty, many thought they would find a way to extradite Polanski for ‘political reasons’, (i.e., to end the UBS stalemate which was however resolved already months back without pawning off Polanski), while others think the US Justice Department ‘deliberately’ refused to release the documents in order to ‘force’ the Swiss to let Polanski go. Instead, the treaty provisions provided a sound basis for their decision, and, to believe that the US would ‘deliberately allow’ a ‘fugitive’ to ‘escape’ them is more than absurd. And, just so to demonstrate that another country will not be bullied by the US, Poland has announced it will continue to reject any US request to arrest/extradite Polanski, according to a report by the Polish prosecutor’s office posted on its official website. “The extradition of Roman Polanski to another country is impossible,” said the Director of International Cooperation Department. According to the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure, such an extradition is ‘unacceptable’, citing Article 604, Section 1, Paragraph 3, which states that the handing over of an individual to a third country is inadmissible if the case has expired. I.e., it’s incompatible with US laws in general, since the though longer statute of limitation periods applicable is thirty years in Poland, but Polanski was, or still is, wanted for something back to 1977, and therefore will not be served to the US bloodhounds.

But then Poland and many other countries have never bothered to arrest him in the first place when he went there many times and made films. People keep forgetting he made two big budget films in Germany, The Pianist and Ghost Writer, organised many years of very popular theatre plays being staged all over Germany and Austria, with many German and international actors playing in also his own works, and he in fact engaged a lot of other people from all sectors of the German or Austrian economy for decades through his work as a revered director, i.e., brought in ‘revenue’ on a large scale for being an artist. I’m sure none of those who had worked on or for his films and theatre productions from the driver to the caterer to the star, in the operas and film studios, anyone concerned, or those in the still running theatre shows of his very popular Dance of the Vampires hit musical making their own living though him and his acclaimed stage work, would ever have demanded his extradition, since everyone knew ‘why’ he could not work in Hollywood or the UK. That would be really unwise to bite the generous hand that literally feeds them. Polanski theoretically could sue the Swiss for damages related to his arrest and imprisonment, though, Widmer-Schlumpf said that is unlikely. I wouldn’t be too sure about that – but I guess Polanski has better things to do.

Like being already back in Switzerland a mere five days after his release, where Polanski was spotted attending the Montreux Jazz Festival July 17th, to attend a concert of his wife Emmanuelle Seigner. He arrived in the back of a 4×4 vehicle with tinted windows in the company of the owner and founder of the festival. A police contingent prevented journalists, cameramen and photographers to approach the filmmaker, making his first appearance in public since his release from house arrest. He also gave an interview and Polanski says he keeps all his friendships in Switzerland and promises to return to Gstaad. He thanked his loyal wife Emmanuelle Seigner and their children, without whom he would not have been able to keep his dignity. He also thanked the people of Gstaad, who provided support, as well as flowers and bottles of wine, throughout his detention. He talked about how his teenaged son Elvis was allowed to cut his electronic bracelet once he was officially declared to be free, and says, he could easily have escaped but never wanted to do so. Of course not, he needed to finish his film and certainly would not forfeit nearly five million dollar bail bond or his mortgage on his family home.

Touching on his over nine months of detention he describes as ‘nonsense’, his argument is that he should not have been treated differently because of his status as an artist. (Though he sure as hell was a treated ‘very special’ ever since Rittenband had railroaded him and Cooley got his dirty hands on the case.) “I never asked for special treatment and for the moment, I am happy,” concluding, “I do not know what I’ll do next. For the moment, I am happy to be free.” Though we know his next project is the screen adaptation of God of Carnage, Emmanuelle told Radio Suisse Romande (RSR) that her husband will be attending the concert she will give in the Auditorium Stravinsky Exhibition Centre as I write this. The popular singer and actress said she too was very happy her husband is here tonight because he has not seen her new concert so far. The ever full of élan filmmaker is a regular guest at the festival, and he had already come to see his wife at the Montreux Jazz Café in 2007.

Unlike what some think, his wife knew of the case perfectly well, like both families and their friends. She even talked about it in interviews, though not specifically since it’s not permissible to touch on details, (which is another reason why they simply cannot make it clear to the public what really happened and therefore keep believing in these lies) but in general. People thinking this entire case was a shock to her are more than mistaken. Only the arrest was, and their kids are just as well-informed of what it was or is all about. i.e., sex with a girl that was forbidden then for her age, not any ‘rape’ or ‘sodomy’ people love to think he told them about and he is guilty of. Polanski has guts beyond guts, he braces all winds of odds and fate ever since his earliest childhood and absolutely nothing can deter him, he’s an eternal survivor and his dedicated family is his backbone. People are just jealous of the support he enjoys, his great stamina, strength and willpower, going green in the face with envy about his beautiful wife, loving kids, loyal friends, colleagues and fans. Anyone else would either cower and hide, or crumble and turn to drink or drugs. Polanski never has, no matter what tragedy struck him. Many admire him for that alone – and rightly so.

Believe it or not, while he was under house arrest, some German projects called ‘LILA’, the ‘Alliance of autonomous women’s projects against violence’, the ‘NRW’ (similar project) and the ‘Lobby for girls’, all seriously demanded last year that the 25,000 Euros prize money Polanski would have received, along with his ‘Golden Icon’ lifetime achievement award in Zurich had he not been rearrested, be ‘donated’, i.e., simply stolen, and given to these projects to combat violence against underaged girls. Now, what does Polanski have to do with ‘violence against German minors’, and, why would any ‘German project’, (or any other for that matter) think they’re entitled to a French director’s well-deserved award money for his own work, or even if he were German? The arrogance and audacity is staggering, and the fact that these overzealous people never received any reply from the Zürich festival director who bravely went ahead with the extensive retrospective on Polanski that was well-received, should make it clear, that these clearly deluded lobbyists cannot simply steal someone’s rightful prize money, just because they believe/d he raped someone, and that in the US nowhere near Deutschland. Why not ask your own real rapists and serial paedophiles to donate something to these causes.

I’m sure real victims find it more than disgusting that people are so obsessed with an old high-profile case of thirty-three years ago, just because it concerns some famous old director, where the woman concerned does NOT want him ‘pay’ for it. Some just as ill-informed soul stated that, ‘serving some sort of a sentence of 90 days of evaluation was surely part of any plea agreement; since he failed to fulfil his side of the agreement, the plea bargain is off, and Polanski is now subject to the full set of charges’. Sorry, go on living in lala land, but HE had no say in how long any custodial time will be, or any power to break ‘any deal’. It was the judge who broke their plea bargain, after the prison officials had released Polanski early the judge had no say in either, who then asked for NO additional time, just like NONE of the parties had demanded it from day one. And no, the plea deal is ‘not off’, and he was NOT ‘convicted’ of the six counts either, but rather the only one applicable at the wishes of the family and the plea stands. Only a judge can revoke it and they hardly ever do just so for defendant to be stuck with it. Guilty or not. Guess why the family never called for his imprisonment? Because the only three witnesses, i.e., Polanski and Huston (and the caretaker), have very different views as to what actually happened and NOTHING that Ms Geimer had claimed could be proven resulting in that plea simply for her age, otherwise the case had been thrown out.

Quoting Ms Geimer in 2003 herself, “He [Polanski] never should have been put in the position that led him to flee. He should have received a sentence of time served 25 years ago, (by judge Fidler, who however wanted to televise it and Polanski said no thanks) just as we all agreed. At that time, my lawyer, Lawrence Silver, wrote to the judge that the plea agreement should be accepted and that that guilty plea would be sufficient contrition to satisfy us,” that most certainly is NOT a ‘genuine rape victim’ remark. No one who was really raped would demand ‘no punishment’ for their ‘abuser’. Meaning, she tried hard to signal to people what really happened since years now, but cannot do or say more directly than she had already with her conflicting statements, or would perjure herself (and Cooley would go after her instead.) And of course people will not ever realise that, or once question her words in the political incorrect climate of a ‘victim should always be believed’ when it comes to ‘rape’, too dense to realise what a plea deal actually means and that too many have made false rape accusations by now with devastating consequences to innocent men.

Don’t forgot, the defence doesn’t get a shot at the grand jury she testified at whatsoever, which is the prosecutor’s exclusive tool to control all that they may hear from the accuser ALONE in a highly biased fashion. If s/he doesn’t ‘like’ a particular witness or evidence because it would undermine the case, i.e., find the defendant in fact innocent, and brings in fabricated ‘evidence’, guess what? The jurors will never know or hear from any corroborating defence witnesses, exculpatory evidence and compelling defence arguments on the case, or what the defendant has to say. All they do is listen to the accuser and then decide on which counts to indict someone as a first step. Then comes the trial to find out if the accuser’s claims are true, or not. If the more honest prosecution HAS already evidence, something like medical proof of no rape/sodomy, given witnesses discrediting the accuser’s allegations outright, i.e., Huston’s vital statement, the caretaker saying she thought the two (Ms Geimer and Polanski’s) lovers, that Ms Geimer was acting very maturely and much older, and most of all Polanski own accounts, then a deal is struck to settle on the one count applicable. Polanski pleaded to what he did, have sex with an underaged teenager – NOT drug, rape and sodomise her. He confessed to that one count alone – just as he did in his autobiography – which is the only truthful account.

Dalton said to Gunson back in 1977, Ms Geimer was ‘getting older all the time’ while the proceedings take place, towering over Polanski already then not at all looking her ‘age’ or like a ‘child’, let alone was innocent and not unschooled in sex, drugs and alcohol even to Rittenband’s own words, for her family environment Dalton greatly condemned as being so permissive. Though it was the very laissez-faire Seventies, her mother and divorced father along with the mother’s boyfriend clearly committed several offences against Ms Geimer on a grand scale. But, instead of punishing them for it, the zeal to crush someone else, i.e., Polanski through several people involved, who had been in the past a critic of the LAPD and the prosecutors, was so strong that it caused DAs Wells, Trott, Mantagna, judge Rittenband, and first of all bent cop Vannater to corrupt the case so badly the moment they realised they dealt with a famous celebrity, that it became impossible to prosecute him fairly. I.e., after the coaching of Ms Geimer in regards to the sodomy the cop undoubtedly fabricated for her, the blackmail of Huston to testify against Polanski who was first on Polanski’s side and then used against him, and of course Rittenband’s own little games.

Hence the plea bargain the family was so keen on was struck once they realised what they had done, accuse an innocent man of rape – and were all given a pass for. Remember, the completely biased cop interviewed Ms Geimer first, and the moment Vannatter asked her about the ‘sodomy’ (after the physician had found NO signs of any vaginal or anal rape), Ms Geimer had no clue about what he meant, i.e. said, “Oh, I thought he [Polanski] went in the wrong way.” As in, ‘really’ not knowing the ‘diffidence’ between a penis going in anally or vaginally, or anything about ‘anal intercourse’, since she clearly never had it. Otherwise, how then can she say he ‘sodomised’ her – even twice – when there is NO chance people who DID have it would NOT know the difference? It clearly stinks of Vannatter’s initial coaching her to say he had sodomised her, (after he had threatened Huston with jail if she’d not testify against Polanski in exchange for the cocaine charges being dropped, to say she had interrupted them.) And THAT is where it all went wrong from the start, for Vannatter’s intention to place Polanski into a situation with another ‘witness’ to testify to his ‘rape’, the way Ms Geimer would describe it to the grand jury TWO whole weeks later.

Remember too, the very controversial Rape Shield Laws would have excluded all in effect exonerating evidence possible, crucial background information, bar the medical evidence that was already known, other ONLY family related ‘witnesses’ and the already coerced testimonies that would have been put in place of the real facts. NO one, who was just raped and sodomised, and then someone interrupts them, would not ever call on that person’s help, when the ‘perpetrator’ even leaves the ‘victim’ on her own, utterly unfettered and unimpaired in any form, not to just storm to the door or simply cry out for help to attract the caller. She never said he threatened or forced her in any form not to call out, walk away, out that door, and she never made any protestations as to how he ‘hurt’ her, how ‘it (should) hurt’. She said herself he stopped the sodomy when someone knocked on the door, then got up to dress her underwear again (which by all means was rather still lying by the Jacuzzi since they towelled off only in the TV room), sat on the sofa again, (rather than bleed, after screaming, thrashing and crying in pain all through the ‘ordeal’), then lets him talk to Huston, and THEN even allows him to come back to ‘finish off’.

That clearly never happened either way, since for one, it’s utterly illogical on every level, and Huston only met her after the sex still on the phone, according to Polanski’s own account matching Huston’s original account. Meaning, all she had stated as teenager was coached by third parties, forced [on her] by her mother to make herself look better, and fabricated by Ms Geimer herself in various degrees on various stages right after Polanski had left them, in order to make her the completely innocent party in this. Or rather to nail Polanski for something he hadn’t in fact done – just because he had slept with an underaged teenager, which by all means is unlawful – and then turned it into a nasty rape case. Of course she never ever said anything as to the incident outside Gunson’s office – and that Rittenband disregarded such important report to throw out the case right there. Ms Geimer in fact never said say that she feared Polanski would harm her, or had, and she never even said he ‘raped’ her. All the said she was being ‘afraid’ of him at NO proof or logical reasoning to that end in any form, and she never said he threatened her in any form. On the contrary, the later the years the more she said the very opposite. And that since before the ‘settlement’ mind you.

Her also rather vague account as to the oral sex and very blasé description of the double sodomy, read more like a kid’s attempt at trying to be clever, utterly ignorant as to how [anal] sex works. Or of course was coached by a cop (who had no clues either) to say that he had anally raped her, like cops love to do when it comes to sex cases – despite NO such findings – and she went along with it for reasons unknown, with or without her mother’s knowledge or input. The fact that Polanski drove her home and that they all looked at the pictures he had taken of her previously, and the fact she could have sought help from Huston even afterwards (had she not interrupted them) but did not, (and according to Huston’s original statement she gave still at Nicholson’s house of course hadn’t seen them in any bedroom or ‘going at it’) makes Ms Geimer’s original claims of unfounded ‘fear’, ‘continued reluctance’ (no one had ‘noticed’ either) null and void. She never said he used any kind of verbal or physical ‘force’ to ‘make’ her do things, or in regards to any ‘pain’ it would have caused her, had he really done what she had stated. He never was prosecuted for drugged rape or sodomy due to lack of corroboration, and they never was a count for the alcohol plying to start with.

Everything Polanski had said in his defence since then is simply ignored, of no importance, let alone his past, his losses, and his entire life and achievements are simply brushed aside. He said often enough he was sorry for the entire debacle once he had gone back to Europe, and now he is long past his sexual exploits ever since he had settled down again decades ago, has a new devoted family, and it certainly wasn’t him who had lied to the courts to wriggle out of it again, unlike the Gaileys. In fact saying, “The girl admitted in front of a tribunal that she’s had already sexual intercourse before with other people before meeting me, though the tribunal wasn’t concerned about these other men. When Mr Smith or Mrs Brown sleeps with fourteen year old adolescents who look like eighteen, it doesn’t interest anyone. But when a famous film director does, the law and the press sound the alarm. It seems that I was the only one who found himself before a judge.” Exactly – and only because his name was ‘Polanski’ after a bit-part mother had hastily cried rape on her ‘acting’ daughter’s behalf. The US courts and lawmakers are nothing but pathetic ass kissers to these anti-sex laws enabling them to do so in the first place, and theirs are of the same interchangeable standard formulas of misandruous litanies than these women’s and girls’ ‘little white lies’ destroying men with sex.

Polanski is well-known for treating everyone like adults, no matter their actual age and holds women equal to men, hence his rapport with younger women too and great success in sexual matters. He once said in 1971, “Let’s say I meet a girl, and she tries to give me the impression that she desires to go to bed with me that same evening, although I can sense that it’s not her intention. That’s what I call ‘games’, and it lasts for about ten minutes. Then I simply lose interest. I don’t mind if she doesn’t want to have sexual relations with me, as long as she states it clearly by her behaviour.” Meaning, he would never force sex like any sensible man wouldn’t, especially if she really said ‘no’. So in that sense, Ms Geimer certainly never made it clear through her ‘behaviour’, since she clearly never removed herself from his company at any given stage perfectly able to do so, really told him off, or even once half-heatedly showed ‘some resistance’ after that first kiss or caress. THAT had been a clear ‘sign’. Had she really said ‘no’, he’d let her be just the same. But she went with him, moved through the house and then had sex with him, and there never was any need to force himself on anyone with the next female waiting to share more sex with him never short of offers. ‘Games’ is what they had played with him ever since.

A lot of people keep howling for Polanski’s blood now that he’s free again to do what he did before, know absolutely nothing about the man beyond the sensationalised case, or indeed the facts concerning. Which is to say, these self-absorbed people not only possess a gleefully arrogant ignorance of who Polanski was or is, they don’t even know about the details they’re supposedly so outraged over in the first place. Sometimes not even the very basics. All they know and repeat are the words ‘rape’ and ‘sodomy’ in their blinding lack of knowledge. People still comment that he never went to prison and that he is a serial child molester. He wasn’t prosecuted for ‘child molestation’, there never was a count for ‘child molestation’, and, how exactly does being in two different prisons at different times equate to, ‘he never went to prison’? Gunson stated even in that Zenovich documentary the time Polanski spent in Chino already WAS his entire ‘sentence’. They are so desperate to make him this ‘child rapist’ or ‘child molester’ not only ‘once’, but also in regards to classy Kinski and of course sexual predator and ex-prostitute Lewis, who both were of age mind you, when Kinski had never ever said anything to the effect of what Lewis had lied about, or Geimer had invented. Or was forced to.

One thing I love reading is, ‘Polanski is obviously no longer a threat to anyone’ – ‘no longer’? Has he EVER been ‘any threat’ to ‘anyone’? NO one ever said he WAS or IS, or NO ONE WOULD HAVE WORKED WITH HIM. In fact, why would he be a ‘threat’ ‘now’ suddenly when he had like three decades to rape himself through the international populace? His last two film projects prior to The Ghost Writer involved hundreds and hundreds of people with plenty teenagers and kids in his grand scale feature The Pianist, and even cast his own in Oliver Twist five years back, people are oh so bent on being his ‘victims’ amongst many others of course. Funny how much time he has for that when he spends most of it on film sets and with his family, and that no one ever said anything untoward such clearly deluded accusations. With people still not waking up, now saying in their usual braindead name-calling rhetoric, ‘congratulations Mr Polanski for bribing more people and walking free. You are despised by many and you will never be forgiven, you should be rotting in jail’, one can only wonder if their IQ in fact exists at all to think he could bribe himself out of this. NOT EVERYONE IS AS CORRUPT AS YOUR AMERICAN OFFICIALS and many more in fact do NOT share your idiotic sentiments.

Others say Polanski’s lawyers – and his money – have influenced Ms Geimer’s approach to the case. Saying, ‘as for his victim’s statements in support of Polanski, I’ll consider those when I see the terms of the payoff agreement. Until then, anything she says has to be assumed to be tainted and suspect’, that in fact hits he right spot – except, it was no ‘payoff’ and they shouldn’t question her words of ‘today’, but those she uttered as a teenager thirty odd years ago they keep taking as facts long discredited by more intelligent people. So they think he bribed not only officials like Widmer-Schlumpf, but Ms Geimer too? Maybe to switch on their brains would be better and stop taking her words as a teen as indisputable fact, but her words today as an adult as the more correct. Of course they would believe a real ‘victim’ can be bought in this case, while otherwise they’d feign indignity. I guarantee you that in each of these ever more unintelligent comments you’ll find the ‘anal fixation’ rhetoric, i.e., ‘he anally raped her’, before that it was, ‘he sodomised her’. These anally retentive and clearly sodomy obsessed people should listen to their own ridiculous diatribe sometimes. Or try anal sex to get a real taste of it.

If Polanski were one of their own, they in fact would say the exact same things as his defenders, to let him finally be and to respect Ms Geimer’s wishes to that effect, that he never did anything like this again or we’d heard of it, that it was such a long time ago, that he has paid for it and suffered enough. These pathetic ignorami also keep saying that he’s ‘Hollywood’, and that’s why Hollywood defends him, when in fact he only made two films there and the last in 1973 to be release in 1974 – Chinatown – all others were made in Europe. Polanski didn’t and doesn’t ‘need’ Hollywood at all, since the entire studio system goes against his way of directing, with much better suited producers who make ‘films’, not feed the shallow ‘star system’ and box office money machine. Besides, where was this bigoted indignation when The Pianist was attracting critical praise and huge audiences worldwide, when he received his Oscar from Harrison Ford, even though his fugitive status and the reasons for it were widely known and reported on? It’s called hypocrisy. Ms Geimer never did nor wants him locked up, the public has no right to demand otherwise, and to do so now would be cruel and vengeful.

NO ONE in Hollywood except him was locked up for sleeping with an underaged teenager at that time by Dalton’s own admission, (or in fact ever since) hence the plea bargain to send him packing. Since this clearly never happened for Rittenband’s unacceptable string of misconducts, Polanski has certainly proven a very enduring and ever-convenient target for press attacks and public moral outrage in the past decades, mostly of the braindead media junkie variety and know-nothings who believe anything they read not even half his age. Fact remains, Polanski was railroaded by the corrupt law like no one else before, simply for who he was – or is – and these real criminals sitting in the Santa Monica courthouse get away with literal murder. Except in Polanski’s case, the ‘little Polish mouse’ has escaped their ugly fat cat attorneys a second time now, which is of course a national tragedy to all excessively interested and self-obsessed Americans hating on Switzerland too now – maybe to get a life would be more productive and intelligent. Find some of your currently thirteen year old girls who need their real rapists locked up.

Cooley has committed enough perjury and crimes during his ten years in office these idiots couldn’t care less about. He’s got a class-action suit on his hands since nearly a year, his own disgruntled colleagues want him gone, and he repeatedly ignored the Appeals Court’s demands to tackle the misconducts in this case. Instead of doing so, he rather declared that Polanski would receive ‘two years’ – when that’s not possible by law at retroactive sentencing policies not allowing today’s laws being applied to an old case – and the minimum then was in fact one year [on probation] for unlawful sexual intercourse which applies still today. He also kept giving us the impression that he wanted to ‘prosecute’ him, when Polanski was properly processed already and had pleaded. The extradition request only allowed for ‘sentencing’, not holding a trial to try him on all counts, since his plea was accepted and never revoked to allow for a trial in the first place. As long as a plea stands, a defendant can only be held accountable on that one count. Since the extradition papers also failed to include anything in regards to his ‘flight’, no such count can be included after the fact in the ‘sentence’ either.

Cooley suppressed Polanski’s own defence account in the papers, all vital [medical] evidence, and Polanski’s witness statements, which is also unlawful. He messed up big time from start to finish by falsifying these records, then gives us this famewhoring Lewis and Allred team spewing more ugly lies and accusations to influence the extradition, after he had engaged in unlawful ex parte communications like Rittenband already, publicly ridiculing Ms Geimer’s attempts to have the case dropped. He’s clearly demented to pursue Polanski that relentlessly, just like Americans think everyone else is as corrupt as their officials are. Even people who believe Polanski is a rapist and/or paedophile but want it done and over with, (never even getting the idea that there is no such thing as a onetime rapist), can see this is nothing but vengeance and wasting taxpayers money, while they should concentrate on their own current criminals. California is basically bankrupt and crime ridden like no other US state, and yet they keep on spending more money on these high-profile ‘celebrity’ cases, just so to feed the bored public some more sordid sex stories. Nice going Cooley – I hope you won’t make it to Attorney General. Oh yeah, and ditch the ‘child sex case/rapist’ rhetoric, it’s getting boring now.

Now, after Poland being quick about it, Widmer-Schlumpf too has stated for the public record that Polanski had not only served his time for his oh so heinous offence, i.e., sex with a minor, pinning no moral ‘guilty or not guilty’ label on it, they also denied the US from issuing any further extradition warrants for him. Other countries not bothering with that at any rate, in contrast to what people erroneously believe the Swiss did not ‘bow’ to ‘pressure’ from the ‘wealthy’, (Polanski is NOT ‘wealthy’ at all or has any clout to influence a legal process) ‘famous’ (that he is no doubt) and ‘influential’ (like the French President, who however only kept in contact with his counterpart who both had no hands in the proceedings), were bribed or promised anything to let Polanski go as many say, attacking the Swiss now. No, they were the only sane voices of reason in this entire madness so far who kept by the rule book of law. Had Rittenband done the same, no matter what he thought about Polanski’s conduct or his sexual exploits, (though he in fact did the same no one seems to care about), it means absolutely nothing in terms of applying the law and what Rittenband did was clearly against the law he was supposed to uphold. No, he like all the others thought they’re ABOVE the law, (while of course accusing Polanski to think the same) can abuse it and misuse it willy-nilly. Media whore Rittenband before scumbag Cooley and just as useless judge Espinoza feel that they don’t need to follow the law in any direction but their own. And the best is, they think we never noticed.

Sometimes I really wonder if people in fact HAVE a brain. Why do I keep reading, he ‘escaped’ ‘child sex charges’, or a ‘trial’? Before it was, Polanski fled before being ‘sentenced’, now it is, before being ‘charged’ with [whatever]’. Hello? HELLO? He WAS ‘charged’ the moment he was arrested in 1977 and then indicted on six counts. He didn’t ‘escape’ anything, and after five months and Polanski was allowed to fly to Europe to complete his movie, he pleaded to the one count the family demanded. People keep believing, because Ms Geimer never testified against him in a trial, they wanted to ‘spare’ her. NO, the defence would have unravelled her fabrications in nil time, and if it HAD been rape, they would have him PLEAD to rape even if she had not stood trial and the mother surely had demanded so, NOT let him plead to ‘only’ unlawful sexual intercourse. How dumb are people to think that. But the mother did not ask for that, though a real rape victim’s parent would most certainly press for that and incarceration, and guess why not? Because the very EVIDENCE did not comport with anything she had stated in her testimony, and since years now tried to ‘make it all go away’, that, by Ms Geimer’s own admission either way.

They always put it as if Polanski was ‘allowed’ to plead to that one count, obviously in no real clue how a plea bargain works. NO, he was forced into it on several levels, i.e., to save [him] costs, to cut it short, to spare Ms Geimer from humiliation, her mother/family from perjury, and most of all because the mother demanded it. Meaning, they all got away with it, the fame-hungry mother who used her daughter and then betrayed Polanski, the drug-addicted twenty-year old sister who backed up her lies, the permissive and two-timing boyfriend of the even more permissive mother letting her drink, take drugs and have sex, Ms Geimer’s own boyfriend who was never done for statutory rape, apart from her lawyer father who told her not to stand trial knowing fair well she ‘always acted’ and would be found out. And of course, slimeballs Vannatter, Wells and racist Rittenband got away with criminal conduct. No wonder after ten months and pointless incarceration Polanski ‘fled’, not because as people now say, ‘the judge concerned with his case was ‘disturbed’ when confronted with the photographic ‘evidence’ that proved Polanski’s continued interest in young girls’, (i.e., that cropped Oktoberfest photo, not any ‘evidence’) where he was photographed with another underage lover, Nastassja Kinski, who was fifteen, although this one was presumably consensual,’ etc. pp bullshit.

People are really pushing it now. First of all, Kinski was NOT in that photo Wells had Rittenband compelled with, she WAS of age since In Germany the age of consent was always fourteen, and it most certainly was consensual. Her mother knew Polanski, that they were lovers and was perfectly happy with him furthering her career professionally. No, he ‘fled’ when the self-important judge wanted to send him back for another round of punishment and threatened to deport him no one wanted and was strictly unlawful. And why do people keep saying that ‘he is on the run’? He ‘lives’ in France since more than three decades now, he’s not ‘running’ from anyone, or even hiding, unlike most had expected he’d do now rather than attend some jazz festival, just because he cannot go anywhere near the US. They also keep saying in a self-deluding refrain of sheer wishing-well that the ‘facts’ of the case are ‘incontrovertible’, and that Ms Geimer’s testimony is not under dispute. Sorry to disappoint you all, they’re NOT ‘facts’ by legal standards and is the ONLY controvertible and disputed part of this entire case; her testimony that was never seriously impugned, let alone proven, or in fact was disproved already or there had been no plea deal.Read between the lines of her later interviews and actions, and you get the idea that she fabricated a classic ‘he said she said’ scenario of the more manipulative kind as a teenager the attorneys however did not fall for. Read on any site that says, ‘unlawful sexual intercourse’ [with a minor, which is in fact self-explanatory to be ‘unlawful’], and you get the more objective/intelligent comments concentrating more on the messy legal side of this corrupted case, read on one that says, he drugged, raped, sodomised, with emphasis on ‘child’ of ‘thirteen’ bla bla bla, you get the braindead attack mode variety, and is nothing but pure projection of their own inner world exposed in their reflexive rhetoric that’s getting BORING now. All they ever do is trying to manipulate the gullible public even more by such ill-informed monotonous oratories. Of course, anything is ‘rape’ these days, especially in the sex-repressed US, though it technically is only forcible intercourse by law, and if a sex partner is a minor, it is ‘rape’ by default, even if s/he in fact consented to the sex.

So much for equality between the genders, since only the male gets slung in prison for it. And if not, they make dumb daytime TV shows chronicling the pregnancies of their teenaged partners, and NO one gets sent to prison for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. There are millions of underaged teenage girl having sex with boys and men right now, always had and always will. The US needs to lower the age at which a person has the lawful right to consent to sex. It foremost would save the states a lot of money and leave the courts and prisons to deal with real crimes and avoid sending innocent men into hell. But no, they either glorify how teenagers can get impregnated in the US and make dough from it, or it gets demonised in their typical bigoted hypocrisy that’s so sleazy and immature. Redefining laws, punishments and descriptions of sex acts, making anyone under eighteen a freaking ‘child’ now, they’ve successfully regressed all minors to the state of an unconscious foetus. These people are so desperate to infantilise girls, render them lesser capable creatures than they really are, disempowering them to the extreme. So much for the sexual revolution, hallelujah! When it comes to rape, we empower women by insisting they are powerless; we make them strong by insisting they are weak; we celebrate their free moral agency by insisting they are incapable of resisting male seduction or consent to sex.

Crying ‘I’m soooooo shocked at the thought of sexual abuse of children!’ are, in fact, completely unconcerned about any ‘sexual abuse’ of any ‘children’ or are, indeed, only interested in their little venom shots fired into all directions to hit some celebrity. And, why do people stoop so low to condemn someone famous that easily without the slightest proof? Because THEY have made him ‘famous’, he IS famous, since fifty years in fact, and ‘controversial’. But, as much as people love building someone up, they love tearing their ‘celebrities’ down even more, revelling in whatever misfortune befalls them, to make them feel better about themselves in clear delusion not even having the full facts to begin with. It’s tempting to ask what’s ‘wrong’ with these people, but more accurate is to ask what’s even more ‘wrong’ with these blind detractors. Are they really that bored that they need to hack away on their keyboards to spew obscenities, insults and plain dumb tirades? Or do they simply need a break from their shallow little lives and take pleasure in people’s misery who cannot defend themselves? Salacious tabloid culture has never been more popular, more prevalent, and more irrelevant to reality. Once it was harmless escapism, now the ugly turns it has taken are no doubt the beginning of a very nasty trend supported by dangerous cyber lynch mobs.

Returning to Widmer-Schlumpf, I believe the ‘coward letter’ (addressed by ‘her’ to ‘someone’), demanding Polanski be brought back to a secure facility before he would be extradited, so he could not ‘escape’ before his ‘day in court’ arrived, was nothing but a fraudulent piece of disgusting slander using her name, published by some US site to inflame the hate-filled public some more. I will leave it to demonstrate that people will not shy from fabricating more lies by even using officials, after her very wise decision to refuse the US their ‘little Polish mouse’ to torture it some more. (I will however leave my remarks over her denial that they had sold Polanski out over this UBS business, which obviously failed.) People who resort to that kind of subversive hate propaganda have been lobotomised, they live a robotised and completely routinised sex media infused, fictitious, hateful life, and all they do is keep repeating the sordid indictment counts with absurd obsession just picturing it all in their diseased minds, getting off on them with pornographic relish with which Polanski’s excessively interested critics are retelling the lurid details. Someone more intelligent said, no no no, I’m fed up with this garbage talk, I know he’s a very pleasant, intelligent and cultured man, an amazing director, he would never drug and rape a young girl, (mirroring Huston’s own words), and hit it right on the head of truth.

People have the desperate tendency to give Polanski more clout than he really has, as in, being able to bribe everything and everyone, and mostly of course, ‘all his other victims’. Funny how they never emerged while he was a fugitive, or under house arrest specifically. Given that he is such a high-profile person, known to be ‘wanted’ in the US, I can’t give any credence to rumours that aren’t backed by actual charges, let alone a conviction. Polanski was a sitting duck for any incontestable or fabricated accusation, especially when it concerns ‘sex crimes’. So, if there was anything substantiated, we’d have heard of it ever since he was a ‘fugitive’. Besides, the Swiss and France allowed him to reside in their countries for decades, Germany, Poland, Russia and others where else he made films and he lived in Italy for four years, AND NO ONE ELSE EVER CAME FORWARD TO CRY RAPE. Ergo, NO rape ever occurred, let alone the one Ms Geimer had successfully made millions believe only to say later ‘he had sex with me’. Indeed. Were he such a serious ‘danger to society’, he would have messed up again as criminals always do and surely be caught at one point, even after being ‘deterred’ by prison, and rapists always escalate their attacks. Since he hasn’t ‘attacked’ anyone, no matter he had sexual relations (like millions had/have it) with a couple of teenagers who were all of age, mind you, they obviously have no interest in playing ‘rape victim’, just because others need to vilify him. He had many older lady friends he slept with too, thereby also capping the repetitive nonsense that he’s a paedophile.

Guess he had better things to do than serial rape and abuse ‘children’, like make films and direct stage plays with hundreds of adults, teenagers and ‘children’ and raise a new family with ‘children’. Anyone could have blackmailed him by saying he had molested them. Did even ONE come forward to say he had? Nope. Outside liar Lewis, of course, who sank without a trace and rightly so. Now they have a new ‘theory’ as to why Polanski could ‘escape’ ‘justice’– by saying, that he has reaches into the very upper tier of the Obama Administration mind you, and that he was helped by the US government of all things in his bid to avoid being handed back to LA. They say, ‘rumours’ are floating that the US Department of Justice, i.e., Eric Holder, was instructed by Obama  to withhold the evidence, i.e., Gunson’s testimony, thereby ‘forcing’ the Swiss into releasing Polanski. After Obama didn’t even bother to read Polanski’s alleged request of ‘pardon’, I doubt he’d get involved with the DOJ to free an old foreign director. They say, such a possibility deepens with the presence of lawyer Reid Weingarten in Polanski’s legal team, who is known to be Holder’s ‘closest friend’, and that the DOJ was lobbied to help Polanski avoid extradition. We know the DOJ refused to give Swiss authorities the transcripts, according to a letter from Swiss officials to the US Embassy. The DOJ said that the DA’s office approved the DOJ’s rejection of the Swiss request.

That said, Cooley’s claim that they never heard of the Swiss’ request to send them the documents is therefore null and void. However, a DA spokesperson said that the LA office was not specifically notified of the [Swiss] request and had no idea that the DOJ had turned down the request. Funny, since we ALL knew about that, and Widmer-Schlumpf even said so in press interviews on both occasions. First they said they’re not interested stupidly trusting the LA court having submitted all facts of the case, then they however were pointed to that not being true when Polanski went public to say he had done his time, then Lewis appeared to influence the Swiss authorities by blatantly pointing them to take her accusations ‘into account’ in an old case which is unlawful, and THEN the Swiss asked for Gunson’s testimony to make sure. But, because Espinoza refused to unseal the testimony, Cooley then refused to release it, and the DOJ in turn refused to send it, therefore the Swiss refused to send Polanski back into their corrupt hands. Besides, why did it take Weingarten or Holder like half a year to free him, if they had an interest in doing so, had such ‘powers’? Because it had nothing to do with them outside the US-Swiss extradition treaty provisions the LA courts clearly violated and Widmer-Schlumpf decided to release Polanski after they refused to release vital proof be made available to them. Simple.

Can we trust the ‘Americans’ (or others) to comprehend the complexities of judicial procedures, even those in Switzerland? Not according to what I read so far even by those who call themselves ‘lawyers’. The US press apparently is now explaining that the decision to release Polanski is creating an ‘inability’ to understand whether or not he had served his entire sentence in California, when suddenly learning that he risked a second sentence, and now a third to be precise, he decided to escape such arbitrary abuse of the law. Really? So why do they still say he skipped charges, prosecution, sentencing, prison and punishment? They say, contrary to what was said by Polanski’s legal team, the climate in California apparently did not lend itself to a lynching of the director, nothing that would foreshadow carnage or a truly biased opinion. Really? So what about the endless flow of VERY BIASED calls for his head on blogs, articles that headline his name with ‘rapist’ and/or ‘paedophile’, picket lines with people holding placards of: Polanski = ‘rapist’ and/or ‘paedophile’? Constantly repeating that he drugged, raped and sodomised ‘children’? They say, Polanski is a ‘vaguely known person’ who does not really raise controversy. Really? So what about all those calls to boycott his films by ordinary people and feminist radicals, that he should be raped and rot in jail? I read stuff like this every day since years now, and most originates in the US.

They say, his ‘enemies’, Cooley, Walgren and Espinoza don’t reflect the Hollywood cliché of Ayatollah justices thirsty for his blood. Human rights defence organisations and lawyers give them a rather glowing review. Really? ‘Human rights’? In LA courts? Not according to all those who were abused and went down on fabrications by crooked ‘lawyers’! Not to mention liars like Lewis! And what about Espinoza’s messing him about since years now and Walgren calling him a ‘child rapist’ to inflame the public even more? They say, Polanski would have left the hearing a free man, with a suspended sentence or one for the time he already served (in two prisons). Really? So what about Cooley demanding two years behind bars who is more crooked than anyone, wanting to apply today’s law retroactively, after falsifying records, which is BOTH unlawful? They say, in the US there are voices who salute Polanski’s liberation, and recognise the extraordinary judicial chaos that surrounded the case at the time. Really? Then explain why Cooley is forcing the ‘Californians’ to pay for continuation of this ‘chaotic’ case, demands ‘‘justice’ be done for a ‘raped thirteen year old’’ who doesn’t want to know and he couldn’t care less about in a case older than most of Polanski’s haters, rather than having sentenced him in absentia, concede that the 42 days at Chino was his entire sentence, and litigate the case to be finally closed? Cooley simply wants the exposure in a high-profile case which will make him AG.

They say, they events took place at a time when sex, drugs and underage sex was the norm (like today), and many US states and Canada made fourteen the age of consent and, at thirteen, the girl was admittedly no virgin, took drugs and had alcohol before. Really? Then explain all those in jail for ‘unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor’ and California STILL having eighteen as age of consent? They say, today people naively assume that thirteen is an age of ‘innocence’ despite what we hear of most teenage girls, of underage pregnancies and their boyfriends being slung in prison for consensual sex. Really? Then explain why these ‘naïve people’ can’t wrap their heads around that fact, not ONCE thinking the ‘non-virgin’ girl had in fact lied to a grand jury, her mother too who had allowed all the sex, drugs and alcohol in the first place, the cops had blackmailed witnesses, both coached the ‘oh so innocent girl’ and highly biased DAs abused the law to ‘punish the little Pole’ NO ONE wanted? They say, if Polanski was tried under the attitudes of the time, he would have gotten off free at no one having spent a day in prison for unlawful sex, true – but did HE get free when the ‘attitudes’ were in fact alive ‘then’? NO! Rittenband made an ugly example of HIM, sent HIM down on threat of self-deportation and Walgren/Cooley TODAY want to try HIM on all counts, AGAIN! America has become so unyielding, so repressed and so damaging in sex cases that the rest of the world wisely says, enough is ENOUGH!

Many rightly say, Polanski is not a paedophile, that others have misrepresented Polanski’s former open penchant for younger females who were so mature and precocious they could pass for adults, true, true. Most have no perception what a true paedophile is or does, and Polanski most certainly was not interested in prepubescent ‘children’ as these people are, but have to call him that in their stupidity. Let them, let them revel in their glorious ignorance. Now he happens to be married to another gorgeous actress for many years keeping him young in turn many are plain jealous of, his plenty former gorgeous conquests. He had one thoughtless moment of falling for a nubile teen who was pushed into his lap to further her career, legally unable to consent, and he admitted his guilt. But only because the girl’s mother cried rape. Had she not, nothing had come of it, except both had been looking at a lucrative future career in the film industry, not decades of demonisation for the man. When you watch them both at the premiere of Zenovich’s documentary ‘Wanted and Desired’, they pose like professionals and bathe in the limelight, clearly enjoying it. Not quite the vision of ‘victims’, let a lone ‘survivors’, No, skilful poseurs and liars. We weep at the sorry tale of American justice they both had enabled to make a mockery of, including an equally media-loving judge who broke his word. If Polanski returned, given his past experience with judges, DA’s and the US law, no one can blame him for staying in more moderate Europe.

Even the language employed to discuss this case has changed. Any sex case. Any descriptions of sex acts, just so to make them sound so much more sordid and punishable. Despite the fact that the same office he now heads agreed to a plea of a charge of having underage sex, Cooley now describes the case as one where, ‘Mr Polanski was convicted of serious ‘child sex charges’’. Really, ‘Mr Cooley’ eager to become AG on the back of Polanski? That does not appear to have been the view of your office in 1977. The DA’s office agreed to a plea deal then that had resulted in a short probationary sentence for what Cooley now calls a ‘serious child sex’ offence, just so whip people into more blind frenzy. The facts of the case haven’t changed; there was no drugged rape or sodomy. But moralistic attitudes of today, legal and media languages and the politics of crime have escalated quite drastically when a ‘sexual offence’ is involved. As we know, the agreement between Rittenband, Gunson and Dalton was that Polanski was only going to prison for that 90-day diagnostic observation period. In that era where no one was incarcerated for unlawful sex, the 90-day diagnostic was used by judges, acceded to by prosecution and defence, to give a defendant a two-to-three-month ‘taste of steel’, in the criminal justice argot of the day. Basically punish them for something under the guise of ‘studies’, since all criminal justice lawyers and judges knew that a more important reason for such a sentencing step was to convey to the ‘public’, that a prison sentence ‘might’ be imposed, though never was.

The public view was usually that in 90 days, or earlier, upon returning to court, the defendant’s ‘real’ sentence would be a short county jail sentence with credit for the time served in custody during the diagnostic observation period. Polanski’s lawyer had the resources to propose a ‘local diagnostic’ carried out by psychologists and experts in LA while he remained free. That step could have been taken in lieu of shunting him off to prison, if there was really any need was for diagnostic, psychological review to justify (i.e. furnish ‘expert’ cover for) not punishing Polanski as a potentially recidivist sex offender. But it wasn’t, he was found no MDSO and no threat to society, just a depressed man who loved sex to compensate. Unsurprisingly no new information or insight was gained after they had their positive reports already, none more materialised during the prison observation period, and there was no need for another ‘study’. The ‘real need’ was for it to appear to the ‘public’ that the judge and the DA were dealing sternly with Polanski. I.e., made an ‘example’ of him. Polanski’s counsel told him, and he had every right to believe, that the 90-day diagnostic was most certainly for appearances’ sake and he would receive credit for the time it took, combined with a sentence of probation after the diagnostic period in prison custody ended as it was routine then.

Basically, play a game at the defendant’s expenses for the public, instead of just giving him probation right away as everyone else, and not let him dangle for over eight months and then sling him prison for weeks for public fun. If that was not the expectation of Polanski and his attorney, there was little reason for him to have agreed to the guilty plea to unlawful sexual intercourse he entered, and upon his release was free to go, his entire sentence. Had Rittenband stuck to these rules, today no one would have any ideas about what happened three decades ago in the Santa Monica courthouse. The need for justice to be administered equally and transparently has not changed with the times, it was only more abused and became more unjust with many more innocent men in prison for sex. In 1977, or now, the behaviour and contradictory statements of many of the public officials involved in the adjudication of Polanski’s case, created questions upon which the public and the media are fixated with gushing zeal, getting off when they can call him names and demand cruel punishment/s beyond all reason. Prosecutors and judges in the courts of LA County may take some heed from the decision not to extradite Polanski. Switzerland has given those officials room to let them realise, overzealous persecution of an old case with an old man who had evidently never slept with another underaged girl, branded by his experiences, is unacceptable.

With ugly and persistent voices like Cooley’s howling for Polanski’s blood in another show of prurient fanaticism, it’ll never end. They care nothing about ‘justice’, or any of these feminists and detractors. To them and so many ignorami he is just a name, a branded man, who, unlike most, could recover himself eventually, driven by his lust for life and directing, create more films against all odds, rebuild his life a third time now, has a loving new wife who stands by him, a devoted new family that needs him. To these inhuman witch hunters however, he’s just another expendable victim of the feminist anti-sex crusade. They have no clear concept of the man, the human behind his public artist’s façade. They’re envious of his former success with women and his progressive profession despite all odds, and take perverse pleasure in dehumanising him on every level, where not even his past counts, his own suffering and losses, sometimes not even his great cinematic achievements, his willpower to survive, forged by repetitively inflicted pain, finally forced into the social stigma of rapist, and/or paedophile no matter who he is. These sanctimonious lynchers don’t see a human being who deserves understanding and support like any innocent man, like they would want such rights bestowed upon them. They keep debating someone they have no facts about beyond media lies or his diverse films, which of course can be, and were, turned against him too.

They did so in a show of vile vilification right after Tate’s murder, trying to equate the dark subject matters of his movies with the person who is telling and directing the stories in a realistic and outstanding way. They relished making the victims being responsible for their own murders, him the instrument of their demise, fabricating outrageous accusations of satanic orgies and whatnot bullshit that caused their brutal end. But, who would be intelligent enough to realise this correlation between a versatile storyteller and his stories is certainly not being an indication of the storyteller’s own character, or life. Of course, it is easier to confuse Polanski’s films and his wife’s brutal murder with the skilled raconteur Polanski, and the real events in his life he did not orchestrate like his films. They make Polanski out to be a little imp for having had sex with an underage girl, and the devil’s attributes were assigned to Polanski throughout his life long before that, transform/ed him into a fiend himself, the sexual predator, the rapist and paedophile. No, he’s reduced to a means of vicious media hounds and pathetic bigots legally and repeatedly destroying him through their lies and power, just an old director who dare slept with a minor three decades ago like countless others had, who must pay his debt to ‘society’ despite the ‘victim’ not even demanding so, that same cruel ‘society’ that had condemned him mercilessly to begin with, where only the faces of his new accusers have changed that enabled his accuser/s to cry rape in the first place.

The most outrageous bullshit I’ve ever read concerning the old case posted in some US newspaper shortly after Polanski’s rearrest, was: ‘Polanski will have unfettered access to the children of other countries, once released on bail, (forgetting that he was put under house arrest.) These countries may reap what they have sown, but I cannot believe that the innocent children of those countries deserve to be served up as prey to that evil monster named Roman Polanski’. Typical religion-style delusion on a grand scale, like he’s raping himself though a few million kids globally – since I was thinking, he actually visited other countries ever since then who didn’t bother with any extradition and in fact made films with plenty of teenagers and plenty more children (Oliver Twist), met his friends’ and colleagues’ kids of varying ages, and oddly enough NONE of them ever said what an ‘evil monster’ he is. Not even Ms Geimer. I wonder why. Another lunacy I read about in the same paper, was, ‘he forced anal, vaginal, and oral sex on the child for four hours’. No one ever came up with any ‘ordeal time’ estimate, officially or otherwise. No man lasts ‘four hours’, and even Tantric sex doesn’t take that long, let alone casual sex.

Besides, after ‘four hours’ any effects of the champagne or bit of Quaalude had long worn off, and most of all, Polanski would be exhausted like hell, let alone her, unable to keep it up, and the next thing that in fact would happen is very visible ‘soreness’, i.e., all stop and drop. I give him half an hour tops for the kissing, caressing and vaginal intercourse he admitted to. And, according to the logical course of events from 4 PM onwards after he had picked her up and they left her home to take photos at Jacqueline Bisset’s house first, which took an hour, to ‘four hours’ later after he had returned Ms Geimer from Nicholson’s home, including the actual half-hour trips to get there and back before he had called her mother to say she’d be late for their 7 PM dinner, that half hour is the most they had time for the sex. My time estimates are in fact documented, while the writer saying her ‘ordeal’ lasted the entire four hours time is delusional fanaticism, or to repeat, ‘child’, living in a dark world of seedy rape and sodomy where they spin their semen-soaked web of sleazy lies, just like Lewis had. The girl would look a piece of pulp, roughed up and weeping, not get dressed and tip-toe through the lounge to get her kit while Huston is on the phone to be introduced to her after the sex.

I took Quaalude often enough myself to get the sexual buzz, and I also had it with alcohol, and even strong painkillers, so I positively know that what Ms Geimer stated the tiny part of the Quaalude and some glass of champagne or even two did to her, i.e., ‘affected her motor functions’, or made her ‘dizzy’, is simply a blatant lie, just so to render her[self] the ‘helpless little female victim’ she never was. People keep saying that Quaalude was illegal and a hypnotic – are they deliberately being stupid, or just intentionally manipulative? Quaalude was the sixth best-selling recreational drug and perfectly legal to buy then, and not a ‘sedative’, or rendered you unconscious either. A few might send you to sleep at one point, but so does Aspirin, and certainly not one, let alone a third she had claimed she took herself. They’re mild relaxants, like Prozac, make you euphoric. They’re not barbiturates or affect your thinking, and the lesser you take, the more they act as an aphrodisiac. They were very popular then and everyone took them to ‘lude out’, i.e., get laid. Ms Geimer’s version of events was completely discredited by Huston, who made no protestations about anything to her, while anyone who was just violated in some form even for only a few minutes, would cling to her, say Polanski  had raped her, not ‘hello’, and be grumpy to her because they had to leave, by Huston’s own admission.

It’s nothing but base media hype propaganda for the prosecutors to pursue the case this mercilessly, otherwise, why didn’t anybody bother him for over thirty years? No, the majority of corrupt prosecutors and highly paid judges who administer the US ‘justice’ farce, pursue people like him, have long proven themselves to be the worst criminals in the western world, far worse than the small percentage of people they put behind bars who are in fact guilty, while the majority is not. These elected criminals intentionally go after major artists and contributors to society, especially the ones who publicly exposed their misconducts. It’s no accident that the US has draconian anti-sex laws and sentences for the most minor offences and boasts the highest prison population in the world. The goal of these thugs in uniform with their guns, tasers, beatings, chokeholds and corrupt judges, prosecutors and ‘law and order’ politicians is to establish a slave state, manufacture criminals out of ordinary citizens by recycling them through multi-billion slave gulags for life. They also make very cheap workforces in prison – and I guarantee you, every single number plate in the US was made by an inmate – who might just have been brutally gang raped, or is innocent of any crime to begin with.

If people say, ‘regardless of the hardships Polanski has personally endured, regardless of whatever his skills as a filmmaker might be, regardless of his years of exile from America or the fact that he has financially compensated his victim, regardless of his feelings towards the handling of the trial, and, certainly, regardless of the fact that his ‘victim’ has forgiven him and wants to move on, he should be made to pay the legal price for his actions and should universally be recognised as the criminal he has admitted to being’, regardless of such US style bullshit litany, it again is the same delusional nonsense that he admitted to it, or to being a rapist, (since of course they know he never has said that but want him to have) they don’t even care about his past and losses, the plenty legal transgressions committed in this case, or any ‘victim’ either. What self-obsessed conceit. Both participants in this old drama are utterly ‘erased’, dehumanised in the name of such sanctimonious bullshit, not even accrediting the fact that he had led a law-abiding life in between, or in fact no one had made any films with him. I wonder what they’d say if some vindictive DAs and corrupt judges messed with them in the same manner. Apart from the lying media and computer lynch mob.

Another lovely ‘logic’ is to say, ‘she has repeatedly suggested that Polanski not be forced to serve jail time for his rape of her’ – um, yeah, like any real rape victim would actually say or demand that after a ‘rape’, though she said that he shouldn’t face prison, true, (since there was no rape) but never actually said he ‘raped her’, not once, and in fact only ever used the word ‘rape’ when saying, it wasn’t rape. No real rape victim would do so. Are these people stupid to think otherwise? Of course, because he never violated her in any form, only the public and law have. Many people cannot even get the basics of this old case right, but just have to shoot off their gobs to make it really sordid and nasty. And to top it all, someone said, ‘Polanski’s then longtime girlfriend Huston testified against him at the trial’. And there I was thinking she in fact was Nicholson’s lover and that there never was a trial she had to testify at, after she in fact stated the same course of events in support of Polanski – NOT Ms Geimer. Which is she same kind of garbage that the ‘rape’ happened during a ‘party’ at Nicholson’s house. All this comes from the same deluded US source, of course, in order to manipulate the dim-witted public some more.

The best lie I’ve heard so far in regards to the Oktoberfest photo that had ‘incensed’ the old judge so much that he demanded Polanski to return from Europe to sling him inside of Chino in a vindictive show of power abuse, is, that some German feminist radical seriously stated, Polanski was shown with another minor on his arm in the photo, while it in fact was cropped and none of the ‘girls’ on that photo were minors, with him, let alone arm in arm. These young women in their twenties were the partners of his friends who had invited him there to take a break from filming to stay in the money to pay his legal counsel, and if people never saw that in/famous photo, that it was deliberately doctored by that slimy Wells who gave Rittenband the idea to send the ‘little Polack’ to Chino in the first place, they’d simply believe it. It’s outrageous Nazi style propaganda no one seems to have any trouble with. The best fabrication so far was, apart from what sleazy ‘writer’ Kiernan came up with or lobotomised Reisman, which is really the epitome of contemptible defamation, that she seriously stated, ‘when he did not succeed to make the girl compliant, he raped her anyway, orally, vaginally and anally, and then kicked her out the door, where she climbed into a taxi, crying’. Another prurient idiot remark. Are these people deluded, or just stupid?

Polanski drove her home in a perfectly non-crying and unharmed state or Huston would have said otherwise, never orally, vaginally or anally raped her as per evidence. And, ‘taxi’? ‘TAXI’!? This only shows she like so many have absolute ZERO clues about the case, or simply LIE to confuse and inflame the public some more. Why aren’t these liars done for slander and hate speech? It’s really amazing what people have come up with so far, and Polanski’s been made guilty of all sorts of crimes he wasn’t even accused of officially. Anyone saying, ‘extradition was refused in order to respond to accusations of unlawful sexual conduct’, or ‘to stand trial for rape’, one of which sounds lesser obscene, have obviously no clues that we’re way past any ‘accusations’ and there cannot be any ‘trial for rape’ unless the plea is withdrawn, and the extradition was only meant to confirm his time as served for ‘unlawful sexual conduct’, not ‘rape’, NOTHING ELSE. Saying, ‘42 days is hardly a punishment befitting the severity of his crime’, yeah, ever wondered why exactly? Because it never was ‘drugged rape/sodomy’, ever thought of that? Sleeping with a teenager is hardly a ‘severe crime’ or brutalisation as some love to say. Others saying that there was no trial to ‘spare’ the girl, are just as oblivious to the fact that a trial would have found her guilty of perjury. And others.

And what is it with people thinking they own a celebrity, can trash them when they feel like it? It’s more than absurd that people feel emotionally invested in a celebrity’s private life suddenly and can just rant on and on not even having the full facts. Just because someone is a successful actor or director they get to judge their entire life? Or ignore it when it suits them in contrast if others point them to their past traumas, or even anything positive about them, their artistic achievements? These people never ever look/ed any deeper, they don’t look at all let alone at the overall picture, at BOTH sides. No, they just keep on bashing others like they’re the saints in contrast, with their little pet theories and pet hates in self-righteous self-obsession all based on the unverified words of the female when it comes to male celebrities, blindly believing their accusations just because it’s in line with today’s anti-sex ‘feminist morals’. One show in the US called ‘To Catch a Predator’, was renamed just for a special on Polanski, to, ‘To Catch a Predator Director’, which was nothing more than a cheap and nasty pseudo ‘investigation’, i.e., televised witch hunt to keep dehumanising him for public entertainment. How can anyone be considered a ‘predator’ for sleeping with ONE minor? Or for having casual sex like MILLIONS had, have, and will have? Let’s call Lewis a predator too then, who at least was a self-confessed teen prostitute with fourteen.

This kind of double standard rhetoric whips the dumb public into more blind frenzy through these highly biased and pretentious ‘discussions’ about the case they [still] have no clear idea about, debating his ‘evil deed’, while utterly stifling his own voice of defence, when it’s more important to investigate the breakdown of the law it had suffered on several levels since decades now, NOT the ‘sordid sex’. Do these people really believe, that one day, Polanski’s case made it to the top of the pile of extradition requests? Like it was especially important suddenly, when they had and still have plenty real and dangerous criminals on their own soil they need to deal with? The US live in the Dark Ages if they believe ‘they’ had ‘asked’ for Polanski one sunny day right when he was supposed to receive his lifetime achievement award on neutral territory, while the Swiss in fact sold him out for ‘money’ after all these decades they more than regretted later. The US had tried to ‘apprehend’ him a mere five times, while the countries they had asked didn’t resort to betraying him and he was allowed making films in open daylight, even received plenty of awards in the US where no one howled for his head. No, only after they thoroughly had demonised him in the press, culminating in his rearrest most people found an assault on Switzerland’s neutrality.

In contrast, Switzerland’s regained state sovereignty finally allowed the Swiss no obligation to send Polanski back to the States, to keep playing their subservient little banking haven, since he had served his punishment long ago. But, it seems the LAPD in 1977, i.e., bent cop Vannatter, and the DAs again in 2010, i.e., ‘Walgren’, are specialists in mis/using ‘cocaine drug addicts’ to nail Polanski to the wall regardless, i.e., Lewis today and Huston then (who’d been forced to testify against him to say the same in accordance with Vannatter’s little tricks of ‘leading’ Ms Geimer in regards to the sodomy, in exchange to drop cocaine charges against Huston). In doing so, the prosecutors and the world press kept forgetting about their self-induced drug addiction, the entire drugs business they profit from, and the courts’ systematic cover-ups of blackmailing witnesses to testify against innocent people, by using drug addicts like them to defame Polanski’s character/past some more, and in a smear campaign effort in hopes to influence his time served sentence, so that the Swiss would extradite him. This having failed spectacularly, let us blame crooked Cooley and his prosecutor minions’ practice ab/mis/use of drug addicts to defile Polanski to the world press, and this very unconvincing ‘witness’ for her pathetic weakness and disgusting betrayal.

Why they are still so hot on him is clear: after years of falsehood and lies thrown out into the public domain via the manipulative media already, they found the perfect target to vilify after he had ‘escaped’ them, twice now, still not knowing anything more about the details nowadays as then after he was released. Ms Geimer never thought the case would resurface in any form, let alone reopened, hence all her conflicting interviews given over the years, not ever believing her old testimony would make it into the public domain. But with the event of the Internet no one ever had anticipated to enable people to access anything that’s been thrown out there, in 2003 suddenly it was floated on the www in intention to boycott Polanski’s Oscar nomination foremost, he ultimately still won because the Academy Award members aren’t influenced by deliberate attempts of slander. No, all people know is what she had said ‘then’ she had hoped would just ‘go away’ – not to be found out she had told lies. I’m sure she never realised what terrible abuse he had to deal with, while she was living in her tropical oblivion on Hawaii. People like man-hater Allred, who keep blindly believing her old fantasies, or just pretend to, and Lewis’ prurient lies of course, are a disgrace to human understanding and fairness, revelling in their sickening stupidity, dismissive and shallow views, like petulant little children in need of a hard slap.

This case has been driven to destruction by an obscene kind of puritanical and obsessed voyeurism, with misplaced attitudes of celebrities on both sides of the Atlantic, who keep pointing to the irrelevant artist angle, with one side shouting, ‘he raped a child!’, and the other, ‘but he made films!’ both sending messages that are out of step with both modern perspectives of sexual crimes and jurisprudence, when the answer should be, ‘but he is innocent [of rape]!’. Don’t try to convince others by citing the ‘artist angle’ so many endeavour only to be ridiculed; his work has nothing to do with his life and cannot be used as a mirror or an ‘excuse’, except that film was and is his job he loves doing till he drops. To concentrate on his cinematic achievements other than see he had recovered himself through and by making his acclaimed works, unlike most people would in any form, working hard on them which clearly shows, is futile and will only backfire. They should not bring his films into the foreground when defending him; no, they should defend him as the human being, a man who did better than most will ever dream of despite all odds again and again, which also earned him a fair amount of envy and enemies. No, his work has to be accredited as reflection of his great skills and means to get by, make a living for himself and his family.

People love to see their own achievements accredited when others judge them, so should his be. But make it not the ‘reason’ as to why you defend him, just like his past must be taken into account since everyone else loves their own taken seriously, and so it should. To deny him his past, his suffering, his losses, his feelings. eliminates him as the man entirely, his whole life and achievements, or else NO one else’s has any meaning either. Some said after his release, ‘I feel for the many rape victims’, or, ‘survivors of sexual assault internationally may feel unsettled by the treatment of Roman Polanski’, highlighting it with the misplaced ‘child’ emphasis again. Polanski has nothing to do with any child rape victims let alone sexual assault survivors worldwide. Ms Geimer wasn’t a child either physically or mentally nor a victim. And then there are those who believe/d it was a one-off ‘rape’, and yet defend/ed him on grounds of no repeat offence and that it was so long ago – which in itself nullifies the first offence since rape is always a repeat offence. Though most of these factions see the legal mess the case is in, only those who think he’s a rapist and want him in prison, don’t care at all about the much more imperative misconducts, blindly ignoring the scandalous handling of it. Most people have no idea what Polanski said in his defence or at the time, in interviews over the decades, and WHAT he said will always be misconstrued, used against him. At the time he said, “I’m not guilty, so why should I act guilty”, with the classic refrains that he either doesn’t consider rape as a crime, or doesn’t realise it was rape, which is both incorrect since it never was rape.

Equally, hardly anyone ever noticed that what she in fact said over the years and in his defence, and if so, twist it in any case in multitudes of perverted ways just so to keep the illusion that Polanski did rape her. Most don’t even care what she wants, yet they keep on and on about the ‘victim’. Or they see her pleas to let him be as misguided or a bad example for other rape victims – too stupid to realise the real reason behind her campaign, since hardly anyone ever questioned what she said three decades ago. The fact that Polanski’s became spiritually immune to this kind of demented treatment, was steeled through history psychologically as he steeled himself physically, is part of history, made cinematic history, that he cannot be demoralised through changes in history, i.e., exploitative politics, feminism and his fanatical detractors, is stronger and more resilient than most for his history, only whips these jackals into an even bigger frenzy to destroy him. Only great men can be felled, can be made small, but with someone like him, unlike many other less resilient and talented men, prevailing time and time again, reality is, his demise must be ugly, bloody and ultimate through any il/legal means possible. Take away someone’s assets, he can recover them, take away someone’s reputation, he can never restore it even if proclaimed innocent.

It’s a long and concerted conspiracy by now, from the moment the mother had called on the corrupt law, she in fact once blasé-like described as ‘a stupid mistake’ in a rare interview some years back on Hawaii (with only a few decades of unbelievable repercussions for the man as a result, mind you), to the day Polanski fled Rittenband’s attempt to send him back inside against all counsel and even the mother’s wishes. Obviously; no one can be punished twice for the same offence, but in his case they can make another exemption. When the chips are down, ‘civilised’ people turn into ‘moral monsters’ with every keystroke and mouse click, delighting in their endless slandering others for sick/ening fun. Polanski has become the ultimate pariah because of destructive feminism having perverted laws that turned all sex dirty and punishable beyond all reason. He’s a symbol of martyr and monster alike. He is, at least in the eyes of many who don’t know better, a depraved persona non grata; a human predator hardly worthy of life itself, no matter he has no history of any other ‘crimes’ as the ‘man’, made brilliant movies as the ‘artist’, while to those who see beyond the manufactured and progressively inane and nasty lies, know him, he’s a sensitive and generous soul unable to violate others – since he’s seen so much violence and destruction in his life already, knows what it does to people.

As a ‘man’, even as the revered artist, he can be destroyed, ‘twice’, but as a ‘symbol’, that of purist, anti-sex law oppression he survived because he had ‘sex’ with a young female many find disturbing – while giving neighbour X a pass for doing the same – liked sex like millions of others, the martyr named Polanski however is invincible, just like his cinematic legacy is forever part of our history. Of course, no one ever questioned Ms Geimer’s account, no one ever asked for his side of the story, his defence – the actual truth. No one cares what he said, and when he in fact ever said anything in his own defence, it’s simply ignored, nullified, ridiculed and twisted. I see it every day on these sanctimonious blogs and articles run by pathetic, whining and condemning voices of mostly female radicals, and even if they’re official sites, they keep repeating the same old incorrect details. No one has any interest in any factual evidence to either corroborate or discredit either side, the readily available evidence that supports HIM, NOT her. By now they have made him collectively guilty, and therefore collectively condemned him without trial, all through collective thinking of our manipulated society rather than intellectual reasoning, doubting, demanding the truth.

Elected politicians, the manipulated prosecutors, or double-dealing attorneys and media-hungry judges alike, ‘fearful’ of being seen as ‘soft on crime’, force people like him mercilessly through the legal gauntlet without compunction, compassion, seeking any real justice, the facts, despite holding all the evidence of his innocence. These callous people play god, and say, if someone refuses to admit to his ‘crime’, he’s in ‘denial’. Yet, if a man like Polanski is opting to flee their unjust courts, remains unapologetic to today’s new lynch mob after more than three decades over his oh so heinous ‘crime’ of having sex with a minor (like many others who luckily also got away with) could it be a reflection of his innocence that he never admitted to what he had been accused of other than casual sex? I say that’s a big yes. Polanski’s public and legal destruction is another example that will forever be a footnote in [film] history books, any future biography others will pen about him in a more or less sympathetic way. It already is, and most simply repeat/ed the same inaccuracies, not really interested in him at all, only to make a few bucks with his name.

People keep rallying to jail an old man who was never condemned for rape or sodomy, never admitted to being guilty of them, never could be proven by any evidence that he is guilty of them. The court accepted his plea he cannot withdraw unless a judge allows for it, which never happens. A plea bargain does not say he’s guilty of all charges, a plea bargain says he’s innocent of the dropped charges, or they would have made him plead to the most serious of charges, i.e., drugged rape. They did not, guess why? Based on evidence and witness statements concerned Ms Geimer’s mere words were refuted outright and Polanski is NOT guilty of her allegations. It requires considerable brains and critical thought to get beyond the mob hysteria, and the comments on most sites are irresponsible tripe and hate speech. They keep hurling epithets like ‘child rape’ and ‘child rapist’, while the whole case happened during the wild Seventies in ‘Hollywood’, not your average LA suburb, where the culture was much more permissive of such behaviour and underage sex was generally not punished at all. But, someone made an ugly example of the little Polack to gain publicity. If anything like this would happen today, they’d be doing the same; run from a broken justice system. There were a number of such cases at the time and NO one was sent down.

They keep shouting and bemoaning that the Europeans do not accept ‘US values’, while we know too well, that USA only values changes that are backward and punish innocent men for sex. This case was bungled from the beginning, by corrupt US law enforcement agencies, self-interested lawmakers and the record of the case shows that the extradition request was seriously flawed, and that Polanski had already served the sentence. No Swiss minister could ignore these facts when considering a request to extradite Polanski. The very circumstances surrounding his arrest were heavily in his favour to start with; he was arrested upon arrival in Zürich, after he was invited by Swiss authorities to receive an award. This was to be a senior federal official who was to praise his work on behalf of Switzerland. Polanski’s confidence in Switzerland was undoubtedly betrayed by the zeal of another official who reported to US authorities the moment he arrived on Swiss soil. This, despite the fact that Polanski regularly stayed in Switzerland at a place he owns, and without anyone questioning it. How can we justify the way this fact never triggered Polanski’s arrest during his frequent trips to Gstaad? People forget that this is the officious USA ramming its anti-sex laws and morals down other nation’s throats, which is not acceptable.

As if we hadn’t enough reactionary stupidity being spewed about the case, now that the Swiss released Polanski they of course need to trash the entire country, call them child rape/rapist backers and whatnot – just like they call his supporters rape apologists or paedophile themselves without any scruples. When I think of Switzerland, I think magnificent Alpen, delicious cheese and chocolate and a judicial system that actually works. If they were assigned a European ‘poster’ of anything, what comes to my mind is banks and loads of money. That’s why we had this entire drama to start with, because they sold Polanski out for money, or at least tried to. Yet they accuse the entire Swiss populace of releasing him because of their delusional assessment they are a country associated with ‘sexuality’ or abuse of children suddenly. The French are a much better example of a European country associated with ‘sexuality’; healthy sexuality, not the repressed anti-sex laws pervaded and sex-perverted US mindset. But to think so would be intelligent, rather than go on a verbal rampage online and demand banning his films. If we’d ban all art, including music and literature, everything ‘artistic’ that was created by someone who was ‘immoral’ in some form to today’s ‘standards’, we’d had basically none and that reaching back centuries.

If you want to boycott his films be my guest, but you can only dismiss art based on its creator’s morality if you believe that art is different than a service, a commodity or luxury. If art were either, the personal immorality of its creator wouldn’t matter. And, think of all of the ‘services’ you use in a normal day’s commerce: fill up your gas tank, chat to your mailman, go to the supermarket, and then rent a movie. The gas and the food is part of a corrupt system: your money for gas probably went to fund some corrupt potentate somewhere most never even heard of who’s currently spilling toxic waste, bullying the populace, and generally making country X an inhospitable place; your cash for food is paying for the fattening of people while others lie starving in front of McDonalds, and the guy at the movie rental store could be a drug addict who buys from dealers running a prostitute ring, etc. etc. etc.. And that’s just the system: your cashier or your mailman might be a wife-beater or paedophile for all you know. Granted you aren’t inquiring particularly deeply, just like you don’t want to know the facts of this case, but what’s the excuse for prying into Polanski’s private life and trashing him anyway, not knowing the full facts of his life or the case? I daresay that there are thousands of men more qualified to be called a paedophile or rapist – except they’re not ‘famous artists’ – and you’re all hypocrites.

Imagine what it does to the soul, mind and body of a human being, old or young, to have to sit in a prison cell day after day for a crime you had not committed, or even paid for already but were railroaded into some more time by callous lawmakers. Sit in fear of attacks, or having to suffer attacks on a daily base, and nothing to look forward to at the end of a day but the knowledge of hundreds more days like the one you just endured, your life slipping away in misery. Put anything in life under an objective microscope – anything – and you can always find pertinent questions, always ‘reasonable doubts’, find more grey than black and white. Especially if you want to find them, unless you accept incomplete or fabricated information and jump to conclusions, let yourself be influenced by crippling emotions and biased feelings. People ignore simple theories or facts, based on basic evidence in favour of huge conspiracies and complex lies that could never be held together in real life. Or they focus on one piece of detail, i.e., the girl’s claims, without looking at the big picture, i.e., the man’s defence and actual evidence that had long proven him innocent of what she had accused him of, had distanced herself from. Technically Polanski is the only one who escaped that tyrannical system by taking his life into his own hands again, and that of course is the reason why they still want him back by all means, legal or otherwise.

The corrupt US legal system having mercilessly pursued men like him, its crooked lawmakers have long become robotic assassins clad in Gucci suits and black robes, creating unthinkable collateral damage in a war that is supposedly being waged in the public’s ‘best interest’. Yet, the Kafkaesque tempest that overtook Polanski three decades ago and once more last year, darkened not only his horizon yet again and pummelled the deceptive safety and illusionary harmony out of life, men like him used to took for granted after plenty struggles to own, weathered it. And, it had swept away all hope for fairness, leaving behind only the solemn, desperate need for peace and justice. Final closure, final release. We love to think that Justitia is blind, but no, she’s only blind when it suits pernicious prosecutors and media-obsessed judges, vindictive feminists and pathetic famewhores. We also pray that those who administer that justice are people of vision. Yet, when legal systems have become so twisted that the once sacred letter of the law strangles its very spirit with perverse relish, then even simplest justice cannot exist. It will die as surely as the dreams of a Holocaust survivor when the world caved in around him, twice. All over SEX.

After Polanski made his first public appearance as a free man on July 17th, when he attended the jazz festival in Switzerland to show his support for his singer wife, he was spotted on the streets of Paris on July 25th, when he accompanied Emmanuelle and their son Elvis to a restaurant. BUT, guess what, another ‘has-been’ has come forward to accuse Polanski of rape, and that even further back in time in 1974! She went to the same sleazy tabloid ‘RadarOnline’ site (of course!) where Lewis spread her lies, to tell us that she was twenty-one at the time (so not underage then), and that she reported the alleged sexual assault to the LA DA, i.e., slimebag Cooley & Co in May this year and was interviewed by authorities. Really? So, um, why do we hear of this [new lie] only ‘now’, right after he was released? The woman named Edith Michelle Vogelhut, a former ‘model’ also known as Shelli Paul, told authorities Polanski ‘handcuffed’ her at Jack Nicholson’s Hollywood house, then sodomised her repeatedly, (of course, it’s always the handy sodomy part at Jack’s house!) Doesn’t that sound just too conveniently similar to Ms Geimer’s accusation, who Polanski took for an official photoshoot at ‘Nicholson’s house’, THREE YEARS AFTER THIS NEW ALLEGATION? And why did she TOO conveniently never tell ANYONE either THEN or for decades after? BECAUSE IT’S JUST ANOTHER DISGUSTING AND DISTURBING LIE, that’s why. Do these people think we’re that dumb and gullible?

Vogelhut’s attorney told RadarOnline that she was unable to file a civil complaint against Polanski, because of Californian law. “I’m not planning on filing a civil lawsuit against Mr Polanski as I think the statute of limitations has expired,” she said. The statute of limitations is ten years, true, but why did she not file a civil suit against Polanski at any time after 1974, ESPECIALLY after his arrest in 1977? Ms Geimer did just in time in 1988 – why not ‘Vogelhut’? “(However) I’m in contact with the LA DA’s Office regarding the criminal case.” Um, what ‘criminal case’ might that be exactly? The Geimer case by any chance, now that corrupt Cooley lost his little Polish mouse to freedom? Of course it is. According to comments on the site, however, they don’t believe her either, are sick of hearing more ‘icky’ libel from ugly has-beens trying to rip off Polanski – or at least endeavour to blacken his already tainted reputation even further (in Cooley’s name). These allegations are clearly all lies, and if anything really happened, they should have reported it THEN! Notice how they ALL reported these allegations decades later, AFTER he was rearrested, when they had plenty chances and venues to charge or sue him BEFORE? And why did Vogelhut not come forward right after his rearrest, during his house arrest, and not ‘only’ after his release?

These liars need to get a life and I’m sure sleazeball Allred will be showing up with her soon in another pathetic 15-minute show of press conference famewhoring. These women should be taken to court for false rape accusations and wasting police time. Ex-prostitute and cocaine addict Lewis too has something else to say suddenly, through ‘friend’ Eric Haymes, speaking to RadarOnline of course, who says she ‘feels victimised’ by the Swiss’ decision not to extradite him. (Funny how Ms Geimer was delighted in contrast.) “It’s a bitter pill and we’re hoping it’s not over yet. But as far as this chapter… her whole reason to kind of come forward was really to serve justice. She wanted to see the guy come back to the US and face justice. It’s very frustrating.” Lies always are frustrating, because no one believes them, pal. He said he spoke to Lewis on July 12th after it was announced that Polanski would be freed. “I think had he come here [to the US] it might have had some impact on sentencing. That was the hope. The guy is a fugitive from justice, he’s an admitted rapist. He plead guilty to the original charges, he escaped and was able to continue perpetrating. So Charlotte wouldn’t have been victimised had he been in jail where he belonged originally.”

Now, first of all, Polanski did NOT plead to the original ‘charges’, only the ONE applicable, he NEVER admitted to being a rapist, and Lewis even had an affair with him years after she now said he abused her! Dream ON. When asked if Polanski’s release caused her to feel victimised all over again, Haymes said: “Definitely, definitely. I just think it’s been very difficult for her. I think the best you can hope for is that some kind of justice is served and when you see it flaunted like it is and the guy given a pass it’s very, very painful. Imagine anyone suffering at the hand of someone and watching them skate and escape justice. So it’s been difficult… even his incarceration is really not going to do much to undo the damage he did to her, but it’s a start.” ‘Damage’? The ONLY ‘damage’ done to her was by HER ADDICTED SELF! Right, so you TOO ‘hope’, that the ‘old case’ gets corrupted even more now, since you ALL keep pointing to it so purposely. NOTHING ALLEGED, and least of all UNRELATED, after someone pleaded guilty to one count can ever be taken into account RETROACTIVELY! Get it? GET IT!? It’s absolutely disgusting to watch to what lows some people stoop  to destroy others, and they know they can do so because Polanski  has zero chances of defence or to sue them over their lies.

Of course, cheap and nasty ambulance chaser Allred has come out too to spew more bullshit in Lewis’ name: “I hope that one day Mr Polanski will be extradited for the crime with which he has been charged,” she told TheWrap after his release, (curious how we hear of this only today, July 26th), “and that he will have to stand before the bar of justice and be sentenced for that crime.” We know you’re not at all interested in any ‘justice’ done for that Lewis liar anyway, ‘Allred’, but to influence the old case AGAIN in some other malicious form now, after you already declared so prominently in May after Gunson spoke out, that, Lewis’ allegations are ‘very important’ to this old case, by repeatedly pointing to the ‘sentencing’ issues. But, guess what, HE DID HIS TIME in 1977/8 ALREADY, END OF! But bastard Cooley of course will not ever concede to that fact – no, he’s giving us another lying has-been! I bet he’s planning’s his next insidious move to destroy Polanski completely at least publicly, if not ‘legally’, and I’m sure it’ll all backfire massively one day. If Ms Geimer’s mother wouldn’t have been so hasty to cry rape and it all went wrong from there, I guarantee you, NONE of these women would ever have come out.

Public perception of Polanski, to the extent of what bullshit has been fed to them for years now, started with Polanski the abused [war] child to the child abuser. The overzealous public then morphed him from someone who slept with a minor back three decades ago, to a baby raper, (though ‘raper’ is not even a proper word), to the average rapist, then ass raper, pederast, (though that’s only sex between an older man and a much younger male), [serial] child rapist, and of course paedophile, (though they only abuse prepubescent children), with the occasional ‘he almost killed Ms Geimer’ BS in between making it to ‘near murderer’. They also keep saying that he held/pinned Ms Geimer down to forcibly rape and then sodomise her, funny how she herself in fact never even said so. Guess they know better. And funny too, how it is always ‘sodomy’ they accuse him of, the ONE sordid act theses ‘women’ love to dwell on, revel in so DESPERATELY, anally fixated. And ‘handcuffs’? Seems more like wishful thinking and projection on their part. A German newspaper article stated when Lewis appeared, ‘will this witness finally bring Polanski behind bars’? Um, what ‘witness’? She wasn’t there. I’d thought the Germans of all would do better research into allegations first before they write garbage like that, or they’d noticed she had stated the very opposite years earlier. Go home, liars, we’re getting bored with this kind of pseudo talk ‘exclusives’, representing ‘trash’ journalism at its worst.

Having talked about her ‘experience’ to cheap and nasty celebrity trashing site RadarOnline in a video clip dated July 27th, Vogelhut has been escalating her accusations to ‘brute force’ now, since she can’t claim ‘underage sexual assault’ anymore, so she must speak of ‘violence’ with ‘handcuffs’ to make it more a more ‘adult’, i.e., ‘kinky’ or ‘violent’ event, to ‘shock’ people into more ‘disbelief’. She said, she spent a night with Polanski in 1974 and claims she was brutally raped by him at Nicholson’s house. “He said, ‘Turn over, get on your stomach,’ and I’m handcuffed within minutes.” ‘Minutes’? It takes a few ‘seconds’, sweetie. Get your facts rights. Vogelhut told the notorious sex stories site it happened on a November night she spent with Polanski in Hollywood, explaining she met him at a star-studded dinner party hosted by Chinatown producer Robert Evans and attended by Warren Beatty, (both close friends of Polanski). After a night of dancing and booze, Vogelhut said the two ended up at Nicholson’s house for a night-cap. Always a good excuse, since he stayed there during his few return trips to Hollywood while making Chinatown and then had the Vogue Hommes assignment three years later. “I kind of knew that we’re going to have sex, but I didn’t expect anything out of the ordinary… I did not expect to be sodomised,” she said. Really? Maybe because it never happened. Or they had just the ‘ordinary’ sex by all means she has to make filthy now.

After Polanski apparently entered the ‘bedroom’ already naked (and so was she?) with two glasses of  Brandy (not ‘champagne’?) she said that after drinking some together, Polanski gave her ‘MDMA’, aka Ecstasy, and told her: “It’s a really good drug. It will make you feel good, it will mellow you out. It’s like a stimulator.” So now they’re both ‘alone’ suddenly? Another handy accusation without any ‘witnesses’ to back her up. See Lewis, while in Ms Geimer’s case the medical evidence at least discredited rape and sodomy outright, hence the plead deal. Ecstasy mind you, was NOT as widely available in the 1970s as it is now, and it was NOT the recreational drug of choice like Quaalude in any form, so that alone sounds very unconvincing. Looks like to repeat the Quaalude angle Ms Geimer has monopoly on wasn’t good enough for her lies. While they were in the ‘bedroom’, (FYI – that is WRONG! Polanski stayed in the ‘TV room’, the ‘bedroom’ was Jack and Anjelica‘s place he never touched! Got you, ‘Vogelhut’, since Ms Geimer had said the same later!) she said Polanski handcuffed and then raped her. “He grabs me by the hair, jerks my head up, snaps amyl nitrate under my nose (which works on some to relax the sphincter muscle,) and enters me anally,” Vogelhut recalled in a not too convincing show either, but seems to have done her homework re amyl, or ‘poppers’, since it’s used for anal sex, but does NOT always have any effect on people, and most claim heart rate increase, which of course can easily be researched.

“I didn’t expect to be entered that way. There was no foreplay, no kissing. Nothing. No tenderness. I thought: Maybe this is what they do in Hollywood.” Maybe, that has nothing to do with ‘Hollywood’, but what you want us to believe and that Polanski is a selfish lover, since oddly enough Ms Geimer said he kissed and caressed her – and so did Polanski – so in that case it means the opposite. “I hurt. This was rape. I was anally raped repeatedly,” she said. FYI, anyone engaging in even wanted anal sex STILL needs extra lubrication, extra hygiene preparations, has to make sure the partner is ‘cleared’, and ‘repeatedly’, unwillingly, would require medical attention at on point since any amyl effects last for merely a couple of minutes, then you’d rip and bleed. In fact, the active partner would become very sore too and stop without any lube, or use amyl on her again, which leads to a terrible headache very soon. ONCE is NOT enough. That clearly shows she never tried it, or she’d said she trashed and cried for help, not ‘hurt’. “I kept quiet for many reasons,” Vogelhut explains rather blasé-like and no more believable. “I was humiliated, I had absolutely no one to tell and with this group that I told you about at this dinner party that ran Hollywood, they weren’t going to believe me.”

‘Evans’ didn’t ‘run Hollywood’ as she wants us to believe, he was just another producer who financed better than average films, and his first film he produced was in fact Chinatown after he had recommended Polanski to film Rosemary’s Baby to achieve instant success. Evans was in fact demoted in a studio re-shuffle after Chinatown (and later became a cocaine addict, like Lewis) and other than being able to charm warring actors or directors to keep on filming once they got into each others’ hair, like Polanski and Dunaway, he had his lawyer Sid Korshak, the ‘dark angel of Hollywood’, to make the studios keep his job and sell his films to the real big studio bosses. Yes, Korshak, the very same mobster ‘fixer’ shyster who was best friends with Rittenband who would only three years later mess with Polanski in a not too legal manner. It’s always a handy excuse to say she had ‘no one to turn to’, and then suddenly produces a ‘friend’ decades later they had told oddly enough only after Polanski was rearrested, SINCE YOU COULD HAVE GONE TO THE AUTHORITIES THIRTY-SIX YEAR AGO, it’ll been a sensational coup!

‘‘Headline’ – Chinatown director arrested for drugged rape, sodomy’! See the Geimer case three years later. There is no limit to what these aging has-beens will go to in order to destroy Polanski by parroting others suddenly, in Cooley’s name obviously, since they all flock to him out of the blue, rather than having told someone official or friends, family over the years. As I said, why did she not come forward when Polanski was arrested in 1977? Or last year? During his house arrest? Not very convincing, ‘Vogelhut’, not at all. She said Lewis’ ‘accusations’, i.e., her dirty fantasies she herself had contradicted from day one with her conflicting interviews given over the decades, prompted her to ‘finally come forward’ with her story. I.e., Cooley paid her too to do so, now that the Swiss put a wedge into his extradition attempt. How handy, ‘Vogelhut’, you need some more money, do you? Of course, since she’s planning (like Lewis said she would) to release a ‘kiss-and-tell-all’ book, detailing her life in the world of modelling. And where exactly is the logic that you (or Lewis) want to ‘cement’ an old case (of ‘sodomy’) with your repeat sodomy and sexual abuse claims (lies), rather than find justice for your own case if it were true – which you could have brought to the attention of the authorities decades earlier, right after his arrest in 1977? NOWHERE.

So, let me get this straight, she was oh so ‘humiliated’ then she couldn’t tell anyone, and now she’s writing a tell-all book with one chapter ‘dedicated’ to her alleged encounter with Polanski? Right. She’s just another disgusting gold-digging fraud who tries to slander him some more and make lots of dirty dollars with sordid sex lies, NO ONE can back up after all this time, or invalidate, and she could in fact have done AGES AGO already. Polanski has virtually ZERO chances of disproving or fight any such sleazy claims, and that’s why they all come out of the rotten woodworks now that he’s a free man again. Only when Polanski is back in the news do they want to soak in some of their fifteen minutes of pathetic famewhoring. These accusers are criminals by making false rape accusations NO man can ever contest, which is all the rage at the moment anyhow, after decades of sending innocent men into hell to get raped there already at not the slightest chance of any defence. Look at Ben Affleck’s brother, who also has to deal with two ‘sexual harassment’ claims suddenly, and magician David Copperfield who was charged with a rape allegation from the FBI the other day, while Mel Gibson of course is inundated by his lying ex’s more than transparent fabrications of ‘domestic violence’, up for extortion charges after tampering with the ‘rant tapes’ in fact. These cheap, attention-seeking and two-faced women are a disgrace to all decency and people are in fact fed up with them by now. And rightly so.

If Polanski really was a rapist, he would have been charged with raping women or girls in France more likely than anywhere in the US, since he was there only a couple of times since Tate’s death. He never was ‘Hollywood’, with only two films made there. He lived mainly in France,  the UK, in Italy for four years, and for a whole three decades in Paris later, travelled all over the globe, made films in Poland, Russia, and ever since he left the US, directed films and stage plays in Germany for decades. How he seems to rape only those in Hollywood is a mystery, since Lewis claimed the ‘casting couch game’ she had to play along with was set in Paris, though she had her part in Pirates already and even said so after the premiere at Cannes in 1986, unlike what she told us today. So, Vogelhut went to the house expecting to have sex with Polanski and had sex with Polanski so it was rape. Right. Always is. Almost forty years later and she wants to sell her book she suddenly was drugged and anally raped. Right. She never said he forced the E on her, if they ever had any, and maybe they even had ‘kinky’ sex, but Polanski had plenty willing women to sleep with and no need to drug and force anyone into sex. The effects of ‘MDMA’ kick in within 30–60 minutes of consumption only, hitting a peak at approximately 1–1.5 hours, reaching a plateau that lasts about 2–3 hours, followed by a comedown of a few hours. The way she describes it, it all happened within a few minutes.

So what came first? The booze, then the E, then the handcuffs (I doubt excited)? And then what? He left her untouched for an hour and only then ‘attacked’ her? Besides, what’s with this ‘repeatedly’? Once a man comes after a few minutes that is it. Vogelhut only parroted the sodomy on the basis of Ms Geimer’s long discredited claims. And she certainly didn’t do her homework well enough; anal sex requires a lot of preparations, and even with amyl, she cleverly brought in, it STILL needs a lot of lubrication or saliva – she forgot to mention. Anyone, who engages in anal sex on regular base, as these women want us to believe Polanski had, would know what to do, or infections loom, pain for both and serious injuries, even for the active partner. She only brought the handcuffs in to make it sound more shocking to escalate the encounter into violence basically. If he really had anal intercourse all the time without any precautions or preparations as they proclaim, he’d long contracted infections or most likely AIDS – AND his partners. But even if he had anal intercourse, hygiene is vital, she would have needed to have a dump first, or an enema, then comes the condom (though for anal sex they’re not strong enough) and (therefore) a lot of lube throughout, and even if no condom is used, the danger of injury to the receptive partner would still cause infections for both.

She said he repeatedly sodomised her? Not without using amyl again and again, which causes major headaches, AND most of all vital lube or he alone gets sore like hell if he can get it in at all, amyl is NOT enough. And, ‘lying on her stomach’? Wrong angle, she needs to be on her knees butt up in the air or in fact on her back legs high up for him to actually get it inside her, like with vaginal intercourse – and if she struggles, we might assume unwilling partners do, scream in pain, bleed and thrash about high on E and poppers, not a chance, unless he pins her down she didn’t say that he had either and holds her into position, which is hard to do and to find any orifice at the same time. The booze and drugs aren’t sufficient to sedate her to be an easy prey, the struggling alone would make it impossible, and amyl has no sedative effect. On the contrary, it makes you more hyper and euphoric and in combination with E she’d be jumping and down, have muscle twitching and the urge to be physically active, run around, you name it. The receptive partner in fact has to be relaxed and in control or no anal intercourse, not hyper and unwilling. Ergo, no ‘sodomy’ (the way she claims) let alone ‘repeatedly’ occurred. These people are too thick to realise any of it, and others, who never had anal sex, or took E and poppers, simply don’t know and believe it. The man bedded a few thousand women in his life and only ‘three’ cried rape/sodomy? I don’t think so. Ms Geimer was discredited outright, Lewis is a pathetic liar, and Vogelhut wants to sell her book. She is just another shameless opportunist hoping to profit from